(9 votes, average: 4.56 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.
But everyone in the world is, by definition, agnostic because no one can “know”. If they could there would be no reason for faith. Atheism, by contrast, is very different from belief because, by definition, it simply means without God. Sort of like Santa Claus.
The word “God” itself is so amorphous as to be virtually meaningless. It’s defined by each individual in a different way making it almost useless.
What is it that atheists “believe in”? Does the same question / standard go for Santa, the tooth fairy, etc? Do we need to accept them as “something unprovable.” I don’t think we do. We can very reasonably say they simply do not exist.
I believe to the point of certainty that the god of the Christian bible does not exist. That’s a belief I can plan my life around. I can’t prove the sun will come up tomorrow but I’m happy to say I know it because I believe it to the point of certainty. My belief or lack of belief in God is very consequential since planning my life around that belief comes with a bunch of weird and contradictory rules that force me to make compromises with my conscience.
I believe the very concept of god is of very human origin, likely how our ancestors grappled with the emergence of a sense of I, and a new Inner Monologue to go with it.
I believe this on a purely intellectual spectrum and me being right or wrong has no bearing on my daily life.
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.
Have you not considered that the social nature of H. sapiens (including empathy) was also selected by Darwinian processes, because sociality is a trait that can enhance evolutionary fitness?
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!)
Agreed. Whatever this all is ,is one.
“100% human & 100% God. (Just like Jesus!) ”
that’s why I reject that Jesus died for our sins. if divinity died than, not just tearing of a temple cloth but the whole universe would end.
All this malarkey humans trying to figure what the divine has to say to us. in the OT & NT GOD or Jesus does to even communicate that humans can scarcely to even understand that.
#1 how did god communicate with Adam
#2 God did not command Eve NOT to eat the Tree of Life [osmosis?]
#3 the serpent wasn’t tempting EVE, so to speak, just clarifying what EVE knew
[from John Locke’s blank slate theory]
and if GOD truly repented or relented as we humans are supposed to do as in Gen 6:6. there never would have been Genesis 8:14By the twenty-seventh day of the second month, the earth was fully dry.
If god fore-knew history, than the divine ought to know it would never draw closer to the divine
FURTHERMORE, Jesus did not come to save the world, he condemned the world from which the OT only the Jews were applicable [from the premise those not hear, are not condemned]
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.
I think we’re supposed to work to make life better for ourselves and others.
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.
‘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.
Nice! It fits in well with the intelligent design theory. However, is it just God and we/us? Can we leave room for other players at the casino? Maybe God or ‘others’ (unholy spirits or angels or some other type of power) get their turns to play and create challenges that ‘we’ have nothing to do with.
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
Interesting.
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.
There is such a theme, but it’s not based on a well designed comparison with self-help that doesn’t assume a higher power. Part of this is historical – Christian sources often supply funding (and thus ideological influence), especially when governments won’t. But secular sobriety groups, though far less numerous, work just as well, when available. Community and support are the important factors. That role can be filled by a church/religious community, but it doesn’t have to be.
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 tend to agree with you. I lean toward Deism when I see the complexity of living organisms. I understand there’s science (evolution, laws of physics, a 3-4 billion year time frame) that can possibly explain it, but I’m just not fully there yet. It’s what slows my move toward Atheism, more than that I don’t “want” to accept Atheism. I also agree that Deism seems to address suffering.
I am new to the blog but this post really resounded with me as this is something that I have struggled with for years and in particular the last several years as I delve deeper into biblical criticism. Like you, I grew up in an evangelical church in Kansas (I still live here) but my questions about God started at a different angle. My degree (PharmD) required a lot of biology/chemistry so my questions started from the science side rather than the critical scholarship side. I have always told myself that life happening just doesn’t make sense in the absence of a God. “Faith” is hard for me because like you and most of the folks who read your work, I need a reason to believe in something. Deism is a lot more comfortable position because as you said it allows for pain and suffering with a God that is either unable or uninterested in day to day matters on earth. I am not sure I can come up with a good reason other than I want/choose to believe in God even if that means that they are not the same as how I want them to be.
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 …”
Bart’s post reminded me of Wile E. Coyote sawing off the ledge thinking he’d finally ended the roadrunner before plummeting to his comeuppance. That is, dispensing with theism leaves you with an even less likely option (atheism). Let’s give it a try. After dispensing with theism, the Atheist must explain how, out of the chaos of inert matter against (almost) all odds we have this habitable earth (the fine-tuning argument has it’s charms), life emerged and then self-reflective consciousness evolved. But it gets worse. The atheist isn’t actually the “person” with a sense of free will making arguments for or against something but rather a “meat puppet” or “wet robot” parroting the next step in the causal chain from the big bang. This is caricature for sure, but not far off and and framed this way it sounds crazier than theism. As a Christian I’ve concluded there is no slam dunk common sense option on offer, but I still believe the factual case is better. Perhaps even more important (if I’m honest) I also believe because it better fits how I want the world to be.
How we “want the world to be” has no evidentiary value whatsoever for the question of how the world actually is.
And explaining existence by positing a god/creator is simply pushing the unanswerable question back a step. When I was four years old, I asked my mother “If God created the world, who created God?” She said “that’s one of those questions we’re not supposed to ask.” Already at that age I realized that explaining the inexplicable by positing another inexplicable, one step back, really wasn’t an answer at all.
Why believe in a God who is not actively involved in day-to-day life? That initial spark of faith tells you that something is true, even if you can’t explain it. Conventional theism can’t hold up to rational enquiry but we’re left holding a kernel of something we know to be true, in the same way we experience love. Why should this specific individual be the one who sparks those first unexplainable feelings? Do you give up on love when that first marriage fails? The number of second marriages tells us no. Faith, like love, can’t be reasoned. Dawkins said that the human frame of reference limits our understanding of the universe. In much the same way that many physicists are convinced that dark matter is real, despite the fact that a smoking-gun particle has yet to be detected, faith requires a frame of reference that doesn’t fit neatly in our intellectual center. I love the line from Wake Up, Dead Man: “….the rites and rituals and costumes, all of it. It’s storytelling. I guess the question is do these stories convince us of a lie? Or do they resonate with something deep inside us that’s profoundly true?”
The God Problem: For eight decades the classic cosmological (First Cause) and teleological (Complex Design) arguments of Socrates, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley seemed to me to be sufficient to prove the existence of a loving and an all-powerful God. Then, one becomes 80 years old and everything, I mean EVERYTHING, changes in that EVERYTHING becomes a challenge in us and in those we love. How does one get into and out of bed? How does one sit down on and then get up from a toilet seat. How does one get down a hall? How does one get into and out of a car? And, on and on, to say nothing of mental changes and challenges. Why in the world would a loving, all-powerful God put so many of us through such Endings? Hmm?????
I hear you. Deep philosophical and religious questions are among the first to go once life narrows to just figuring out how to manage through the day. And the practical realities of life challenge the intellectual notions of meaning….
Not to be breathtakingly fundamental, but the old “Either the universe created itself or it was created by some supreme being” is enough for me to accept deist thinking. Qoheleth was a deist – he mentioned God over 40 times, said God put everything into motion, but then was a hands-off God: “time and chance happen to all” cannot be reconciled to an actively involved God.
On a different note, whoever thinks the God of Abraham is omnibenevolent doesn’t fully accept his bloodthirsty role in the OT. He’s truly a monster. A supreme being would be so very different.
Great comment Seahawk41. As a recovering evangelical, I struggle with some of the same things Bart has struggled with and apparently caused him to lose his faith (Theodicy), I’m not ready to give up on God. (see Job). I just don’t have the answers but find comfort in my faith in God.
I can understand why, when the problem of theodicy and the idea of Deism are pressed logically, atheism may seem like the more coherent conclusion. Deism, at least to me, can sometimes feel like a compromise position.
But my own path was rather different. When I first decided to believe in the God of the Bible at age twenty, I had no certainty at all. I made a rather naive equation: if there was even a 0.1% chance that God existed, and if enduring in faith could lead to eternal life, then the expected value still seemed infinite. Looking back, I almost smile at that reasoning. It was, in a sense, a gamble—and the stake was my life in this world.
Whether that gamble was wise, I will not know until I die. But it’s interesting to me that, at that time, it was enough reason to begin believing.
I am deeply troubled by Auschwitz, by children dying of hunger, and by countless lonely, painful deaths. I also feel compelled to do whatever small good I can. Perhaps I simply accept that the world is such a place, and still believe because hope seems morally and spiritually necessary to me.
If you define God as something like one’s own highest ideal, there are a lot of good reasons why one might want to believe in him/her/it, at least for practical purposes. One need not literally believe in anything supernatural. Think of it more as a mental hack: a way of giving form to one’s own ideals in a way that grounds them in history and tradition and makes abstract ideas more concrete. If one finds framings involving God and religion to be more of a hinderance than a help, they should be discarded. But many including me find them helpful.
Bart, I wasn’t sure how else to ask about a previous statement. Why do you lend more credence to Peter believing he saw the Risen Jesus than James, whom Paul also meets and states saw the Risen Jesus?
It’s because Peter is consistently named in a range of independent sources as having seen the resurrected Jesus; there is no narrative account of that happening to James. But I do think James had a vision of jesus, yes. But we don’t hear anything about it apart from the passage in Paul.
We are surrounded by religious pronouncements that “God”, whatever that entity might be, “loves” us, all of us, much as a parent loves a child, hence the parental symbolism. I fall back on the realization that if you treated your children the way “God” treats his/her children, you’d be in prison for child abuse. Pastafarianism makes more sense.
The universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of planets. Those inhabited by some form of life are likely in the minority. In any case, we are advanced primates inhabiting a pale blue dot on the outskirts of a galaxy. If there is some form of supreme intelligence that established the rules, it is beyond our comprehension—but not in the sense of the “mystery” found in dogmatic religions. We are still too far behind in scientific research to decipher the signs. Perhaps we will understand something in a few thousands of years—if we don’t go extinct first. But it is childish and ridiculous to project characteristics typical of mammals—such as parental love—onto a theoretical supreme intelligence. And it is deeply manipulative to lead religious followers to believe that they can reach this entity through words or thoughts and influence it in our favor. Even omnibenevolence is untenable, when the entire evolution of species has been based on competition, killing of rivals. We are NOT particularly important, nor the beloved children of a deity. At best, we can be compared to bacteria in a culture on a microscope slide among millions of other slides. Cynical, perhaps, but true to reality.
I don’t believe in the recently popular theory that we live in a grand simulation, but in theory there could be an entity (or a group of entities) that doesn’t intervene and “enjoys” creating multiverses, perhaps each with different physical laws.
And observing everything in a cold, analytical way—or at least in a way that’s not compassionate or moral as we understand it.
Perhaps this cycle has repeated itself billions of times or infinitely.
Perhaps, for them (with lovecraftian vibe), time and space as we conceive them don’t even make sense.
It’s all conjecture.
In that case, entire solar systems swallowed by black holes and billions of extinct sentient beings would be mere fluctuations—tiny lights flickering on and off on a massive control panel.
“The Type 5 technological civilization on planet (10 zeros) in the galaxy (another 10 zeros) was wiped out by an asteroid before it was able to colonize other planets.”
Alongside billions of other messages about exploding stars, colliding galaxies, and so on.
I doubt such entities would care that Timmy, an 18-year-old from Alabama, had impure thoughts about a college classmate or skipped religious services a couple of times.
This could be a form of “deism.”
Dr. Ehrman, you say you simply see no reason to believe, and I take that seriously rather than trying to argue you out of it. But I would like to ask about something just underneath it.
You have spent your life close to thoughtful, well-read people who weigh much of the same evidence you do and still believe. So I wonder how you read that. Do you take their faith as something the argument should have removed, a mistake they have not seen, or as an honest different weighing of the same facts?
Put plainly: do you think unbelief is the only reasonable outcome here, or that it is yours?
I ask because the answer seems to matter more than another round on theodicy. If unbelief is the only rational verdict, then belief is error. But if reasonable people can weigh this differently, without either side missing something the evidence makes plain, then we may be standing on the same threshold, looking opposite ways, neither of us forced across by the argument alone.
I am genuinely unsure which you would say.
It’s my view. I know plenty of thoughtful people who are highly intelligent and rational who believe. So obviously belief in the face of contrary evidence is possible.
Thank you, that’s a generous answer, and it’s the distinction I was hoping you’d speak to. May I ask about one word, not to quibble but because I think it’s where you and I are both trying to be honest?
You say belief persists “in the face of contrary evidence.” I can’t tell whether you mean the evidence genuinely points against belief and the believer holds out anyway, or whether you mean it points against it for you, weighed as you weigh it, while someone else might weigh the same things and not find them contrary at all.
Those feel like different pictures to me. In the first, faith is resistance to where the evidence leads. In the second, it’s a real disagreement about where it leads.
Which did you mean?
I’d rather ask than assume.
Even positions a person holds can have contrary evidence. It’s just that in their judgment the positive evidence outweighs the contrary. I’d say that any honest monotheist should have to admit, and many, many do, that the problem of suffering in extremis is contrary evidence to their beliefs in God. They may see that as a problem, but not as an insurmountable one.
Here’s where I think we agree: suffering in extremis weighs against belief, heavily, and an honest believer has to hold that weight rather than explain it away. I’ll accept it as contrary evidence in your sense, and I won’t make it lighter than it is.
Where we part is only this: I’d say it counts as evidence against God specifically once you grant that a good God would not permit it, and that step is itself a judgment, not a bare fact.
So I hold the full weight without granting that it settles the question. You weigh it the other way. Neither of us reaches that by missing what the other sees.
My take on Deism is that it answers the first question (how did all this universe and intelligent life come into existence) while acknowledging theodicy (it couldn’t have been a loving, active God). Lots of rational thought. Interestingly , the Deist God seems like a variation of the gnostic demiurge
This is a great post. One of my favorite plays & movies is “Inherit the Wind”.
Bart, you are thinking to much :-).
In the play,
Matthew Harrison Brady (who is the William Jennings Bryan character) says: “I do not think about things I do not think about”
Henry Drummond (who is the Clarence Darrow character) says: “Do you ever think about things that you DO think about?”
Here is the link:
https://clip.cafe/inherit-the-wind-1960/i-do-not-think-about-things-i-do-not-think-about/
Good points, Bart.
In my classes on freethinkers we read Thomas Paine and discuss his deistic views. A good stretch for theists to consider that alternative (however “Paine-ful”). Paine is a good example of the issue though: what is the real world result of one’s beliefs? For instance, a secular, democratic, pluralistic form of government, thanks in part, to deistic thinkers.
In my current class on the Stoics we discuss their ancient view that Zeus was essentially the face of Nature/Universe, sharing the same “divine Reason” as humans. Odd, but oddly compelling. In my view, we are (hopelessly?) anthropomorphic concerning God, Nature and reality. We humans simply want everything to revolve around us, especially any deity.
I’m content being a freethinking humanist and agnostic atheist. Or, simply, Chris.
Many comments and philosophies developed over the centuries focus on ‘some-thing’ that exists indicating values, morals, being-ness, etc. But those are all human centered. Need to think in terms of physics centered. Humans evolved to consider and act with values, but this is not something inherent in the universe. Human values, ethics, governmental systems, economic systems, family and social mores are, in essence, agreements with other humans as ways to co-exist or not to co-exist for those humans insistent on killing others then dominating.
Physically matter cannot arise from nothing. The tricky part is understanding that until matter such as sub-atomic particles interact with other sub-atomic particles the universe may SEEM to not be made of anything. That is, until matter interacts so that it can be measured in some way. Which leads to my biggest question: What is energy? If it is mass X the speed of light squared but nothing can travel faster than light, then how can it travel twice as fast? Prior to the big bang what we now consider matter was a ball of energy…then somethings interacted; formed matter, not god.
Hi Bart! I’m curious about what major ideas you used to be certain about as a believer that perhaps you now wonder how you could have believed things so incredible/foolish/silly. Love the blog!
I suppose I’m reluctant to label beliefs foolish or silly, since so many well-meaning and sincere people hold them. But there certainly re things I believed that now I think are so obviously wrong that I realize I had to be have accepted an entirely different view of knowledge, truth, and ultimate meaning to believe them — things that I “reasoned” but clearly for what now strike me as completely misguided reasons. For example: a literal Adam and Eve, flood, and tower of Babel; Jesus coming back soon at the rapture; the eternal torment of billions of souls who never had even heard of Jesus; that fact that I was right about religoius truths and the vast majority of everyone else who had ever lived was wrong and going to hell for it; and … it’s a long list.
I’m with you in not seeing much point to Deism. I’ve always been a fan of the (possibly apocryphal) story of Napoleon asking Pierre-Simon Laplace why he didn’t write about a creator, to which Laplace replied: “I had no need of that hypothesis.” From my perspective, if God can’t interact with the world, his existence explains nothing and should be discarded. It’s just an extraneous layer people add onto reality. If God can come into existence spontaneously, then so can the universe; why not cut out the middleman? Deism always struck me as an exercise in affixing the label “God” on the universe, life, intelligence, love, or whatever else people see as fundamental. Why not just be satisfied with the universe? What is added by calling it God? I agree with you that it’s really just an intermediate step for people not yet ready to identify as agnostic/atheist.
Greetings, uberbeek. Newton’s support of Kepler’s theory of elliptical revolutions of the planets was questioned on scientific grounds that the theoretical revolutions would generate the forces that should cause the solar system to destroy itself. Newton did not deny the science of his challengers. Instead, he said that GOD intervenes as necessary. Napoleon asked Laplace about Newton’s assertion that GOD intervenes as necessary. Critics of Laplace said that he cherry-picked the data and did not answer the critics.
There should be a term for someone who (like me) thinks that:
1. a Creator is the least-implausible explanation we have (so far) for the existence of a universe — cf. the late Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne’s work on science and theology (although much of his reasoning is unpersuasive);
2. the fact that the cosmos hasn’t devolved into heat death, but instead continues to organize itself — with our help as created co-creators (Philip Hefner’s term) — into things that we mostly like better than before, suggests that the Creator isn’t all bad;
3. as to the rest: We just don’t have enough information to draw any conclusions — but we can keep looking.
I suppose “Deist” would be fitting.
Spinoza,my greatest inspiration,an Orthodox 17th century Jew who anticipated Einstein’s God,defined” God or Nature” as the same.The need for a protector or imaginary friend hinders understanding of the wondrous nature of our universe.The demand for supernatural
“miracles” is an insult to the reality of the actual statistical improbability of our existence.Ancient Israel had no illusions.Isaiah’s God declares itself creator of both good and bad.You can argue if “bad”meant also moral evil,but Genesis already ties our flawed humanity,separated from the God of animals by a unique human self-consciousness,to the knowledge of good and evil.And then there is a recent understanding of randomness,chance and chaos.What we don’t like we now blame on a God we created.That same ” designer” we expect so much care and determinacy from,also supposedly designed terrible things.The Christian God,like so many exaggerations of Christianity that betrayed Jesus’ Israelite essence,is a lesser God than the unfathomable God of Jesus and of Israel.A “God of love”,pure and simple,is a baseless, incomplete premise that pacified the masses and sold the faith. Correct perhaps was Maimonides thinking that one could never say what God “is”but only what God is not:it is not non-existent. So choose your own God. One such surely exists.
Just watched one of your podcasts where you talk about myths atheists believe. Lots of commenters are disappointed that you claim the Big Bang is a myth. I don’t think you actually mean that the Big Bang is a myth, right? I think it was more of —atheists who think they believe in only facts is a myth—or were you saying something else?
On another note, I would like to know what evidence there is regarding Luke taking information from Josephus and incorporating it into his gospel, especially when it comes to Steve Mason‘s views. What evidence does he give and why do you disagree with it? It would be interesting if he made some guest posts about it on the blog as well.
Yes, I mean it’s a myth. But if anyone actually listend to what I said I *meant* by myth, they would see what I mean. It does NOT mean it didn’t happen.
Mason and others cite oddities in Acts allegedly shared with Josephus. I talk about it here: https://ehrmanblog.org/the-acts-of-the-apostles-who-wrote-it-when-and-why/
Are you saying that atheists believe in myths because they trust in the scientific community rather than investigating the actual evidence for the BB themselves?
I didn’t see anything about Mason in the link you gave. I think Mason argues that there are linguistic parallels between Luke and Josephus, regardless whether the information is correct or not. What is your opinion about that?
It’s a bit more than that. No one can know what “caused” the Big Bang and what it actually entailed (and yes, few of us actually know what real experts do know), but we believe it did happen, and this belief affects seroiusly how we understand the world (i.e., all of reality) and our place in it.
Yes, that’s more or less his argument; I find it intriguing but I don’t think the evidence is compelling.
“God is ALL loving and ALL powerful – well, it sure don’t seem like it”
The sun is all white, but it sure doesn’t seem like it when there’s a forest fire. The sun is always around, but it sure doesn’t seem like it at night.
I have much less belief sometimes and more belief sometimes.
My belief simply increases or returns every time I ask the universe for proof. But it fades so I constantly ask.
• I’ve seen my aura chanting Sanskrit stuff.
• I’ve ranted at my um non-corporeal channeled guide to prove themselves, then in minutes got upgraded to a first-class flight where my first-class seatmate put headphones on me, and played that channeled guide before we even took off.
• I sent a 40-hour light meditation ball without ever telling the recipient I dabbled – and they texted me unprompted in seconds to say they just felt big electricity and knew it was me.
I think everyone needs to ask for themselves because it’s the George Carlin metaphor – everyone who believes more than me is crazy, everyone who believes less than me is insensate.
And then my meditations led me to my original hypothesis that Jesus is acting as the living image of the son Asalluhi in the Gospels (Ea in Revelation), and that the Egyptian deity Yah is probably Ea in the 28th day of Sin (it’s Mesopotamia’s big Sabat with no pork, onion, leeks allowed per Babylonian hemerology. And the Hebrew Bible uses the number 28, 28 times.)
Every time there’s cultural diffusion between two cultures it’s like, a mystery.
Another definition of “activity” is the NDE experiences of millions of people. Some are on YouTube. There are several different YouTube channels. Yet another definition of “activity” is the controversial Charismatic Gifts. Somewhere in-between these two reported phenomena are the “visitations” from Jesus that are being reported by Christians. Let me compare it with a popular YouTube channel for amateur Gold prospectors. His advice is to go to the mountains when Gold mines have produced Gold. Don’t look for Gold where no Gold has been detected. We are looking for “activity” according to our own pre-conceived notions where “activity” should be SUMMONED TO APPEAR. When the “activity” does not appear (when summoned), then we consider that as evidence to the contrary of the existence of “activity”. CAVAET! If you want to be transported to a temple on the planet Venus, simply join the homegrown religion of ECK (copyright name). Soul-travel (another copyright name) is not guaranteed, but facilitators will assist you. If you want to control the process, don’t be surprised if you succeed. If you are skeptical of “activity”, don’t be surprised if your skepticism seems to be justified.
“Why Not Believe in a God Who is *Not* Active in the World?”
HE is not active with you, but is very active with me! why he is not intervening?. because you people decided to do so [instead of Him – ppl became interventionists, instead of God.]
The Reality of Free Will and Personal Experience
The Illusion of Inactivity: Skeptics confuse God’s respect for human free will with total absence.Collective Eviction: Humanity explicitly demanded autonomy, choosing to run the world by its own corrupt rules and systems.The Sovereign Response: God honors that choice on a macro level, allowing humanity to experience the raw consequences of its own self-governance.Personal Presence: He remains intensely active on a micro level, making Himself known exclusively to individuals who actually seek Him and invite Him in.