Wednesday, February 21, 2007

What DO you believe?

This blog post marks my 300th and I can think of no more appropriate discussion to signify the 300th post, let alone as a topic to begin Lent.

I've been disturbed of late by an ever more aggressive attack by Atheists on Christianity in specific and religion in general. Their arguments, though now conveyed by all the modern conveniences, have not changed in thousands of years. How can We believe in the things that are written? How can We believe in a man who claimed to be the risen Christ? How can We believe in an invisible creator who made everything, even us, and yet, does not reveal Himself to us? Isn't religion just a trap? Isn't it something make believe that We all want really really badly, so we made it up? There is no evidence for any of it and any of us who believe it, therefore, are delusional. The world would be better off without religion.

Perhaps they're right. We must, for a moment, concede the fact that We can not physically see God. We must concede the fact that much of the life of Jesus Christ is a mystery and that none of us can empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He existed, much less was raised from the dead. We have no proof that the universe was created. We have no triggering mechanism for life and nobody that We can see has ever stepped forward and claimed to be the creator. Religion has been the cause of so much turmoil and destruction that perhaps we would be better off if it had never been discovered.

And so what does that leave us with? What is the alternative to a world filled with religious belief and faith? What DO these atheists purport to believe in?

Anthropology can't grasp religion. Despite the fact that science has tried to understand the dynamics that make it work, change, and effect so many people, science can't grasp what religion is exactly. They can't define it. It is as elusive to anthropologists as the GUT theory is to physicists. They have tried to define it as a system by which a society controls its members. They have tried to define it as a social heirarchy that exists on a level outside of society, but that has a defining presence on any society that it contacts. But one thing pure science can not allow is a definition of anthropology that includes the existence of a divine being or beings controlling the universe - which is sort of like trying to define an Oreo without believing in the existence of cream filling. It can't be done. And when you really think about it, there is no such world that could exist without religion.

Many atheists say that they believe in a moral universe, not a religious one. But moral to who? And to what purpose? What does it mean to be good? Or evil? If there is nobody that will judge your ultimate actions? If our existence is merely tied to one life time on Earth, give or take all, one roll of the dice, and then... oblivion; what does any of it matter?

Without a backbone of belief, law has no meaning. Without a backbone of belief, good and evil have no meaning. Without a backbone of belief, existence is purely chemical. We are no more and no less important than the flea on a dog, or an amoeba. We exist. Our life is meaningless. Our existence is a cruel joke - a longer lived May Fly. To what end?

The universe boomed into existence. The universe expanded, cooled, created worlds, created Earth. Life formed. Life evolved. We're born. We grow. We procreate. We die. The universe cools. The universe dies. How very depressing.

If an atheist truly believes what they say they believe, then none of this matters. Life is just existence. Love is just chemical. Joy is just hormones. Sunset is just science. Money is just economics. Everything is controlled by an immutable set of laws that just popped into existence of their own accord and we are just cogs in the wheel of existence.

But I don't believe that for one second, and I don't think there's a single atheist on the planet that does either. You couldn't exist if you truly thought that. There'd be no reason to exist. There'd be no point in raising your child. There'd be no way for the human race to have ever survived. We'd have never had a reason to evolve.

God created every single one of us. We all have a purpose here on Earth. Each of our purposes is hopelessly entangled with each other's purposes, so that no matter what we do, it involves interaction with one another. None of us is more important than any other and none of us have it completely right. We all matter. We're all important. And we all share in the bounty of God's love.

You can decide what you want to believe. I can't decide for you. But as for me, I'm going to believe in something, because quite frankly, there really is no other choice.

5 comments:

Steve Sinai said...

I'm not an atheist, since I don't know how you can be absolutely sure there's no God, but to say I'm agnostic would be accurate. The idea that we merely turn into dust after our death doesn't bother me at all. I just accept it, and figure when I'm dead I won't be bothered about it.

The world was able to manage before I came along, and I'm sure it will be able to manage after I'm gone.

When I die, maybe something will happen that I don't expect, but I think the chances of being judged by a God, and then being sent to Heaven or Hell, are so low as to not be worth worrying about.

Maybe as I get older and closer to death, my views will change.

Anonymous said...

Good post, Will.

I cannot understand an atheists point of view, perhaps because I was/am susceptible God's drawing me to Him. Once I began down that road, logic and reason took over and I wound up standing figuratively in front of an empty tomb outside Jerusalem.

As for your point about the origins of morality, you are spot on and I've yet to hear any refutation of that argument. Specifically, if morality is not transcendant, i.e. existing outside of we mortals, but rather is a societal construct, then really it is only based upon the ability of one person, group, etc. to impose its will on others. Stated differently, stealing is wrong only if I get caught doing it.

I wrote about this last year in posts titled Morality as Social Necessity and View From the Bottom of the MOSH Pit. If I try to find the direct links now, I'll lose this comment.

Anyway, well said.

Cheers.

Will Robison said...

Steve - My argument wasn't against people who don't believe in God or Allah or what have you, so much, as it was against the argument that nothing is out there and that any construct we seek to use to guide our lives is a mere human construct and, as such, utterly meaningless. As I said, "You can decide what you want to believe. I can't decide for you." The implication is that you should believe in something - even if its your horoscope ;)

Randal - I was thinking of your previous blogs when I was thinking about this topic. You've really mined the area well. But I'm not sure anyone is listening. I'm still concerned about this crazy Youtube challenge that's out there (renounce God on video). To me, its a direct assault on Christianity - not some sort of promotion of atheism.

Anonymous said...

Will, I heard about that, too. It's actually a "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" challenge, i.e. "let's commit the unpardonable sin for laughs" thing.

Very sad. All you can do is pray.

Andy said...

And prayer is perhaps the best defense, isn't it?

Excellent post Will. Yes, we're back from the Southland...