36 comments

1. Atheism, and to some extent agnosticism, demand a pretext that God is unproven and thus cannot exist.

   Hey, just a heads up: you are using a definition for agnostic that doesn’t quite jive with the more common modes of usage by other people. The simplest definition of agnostic is someone who feels that, given the information available to them, they can’t take a solid, absolutely certain position on the existence of deities.

   You can get many variations of agnosticism. Here are a few examples:

   1) Agnosticism, independent of other belief systems: “Does a god exist? Beats me, I can’t tell. I don’t feel that I can take a position on the matter.”

   2) Agnostic theist: “Does a god exist? Yes, I think a god probably exists, but I’m not completely certain. I believe in a god but I’m open to the possibility that god might not exist.”

   3) Agnostic atheist: “Does a god exist? No, I think it is unlikely that a god exists, but I’m not completely certain. I don’t believe in a god but I’m open to the possibility that one might exist.”

   You can have agnostic Christians, agnostic Jews, agnostic pagans, and so on. Agnosticism can easily combine with a variety of belief systems.

   Also, there’s a far more rigid variation of agnosticism that I’ve noticed. Some people claim to be agnostic about the existence or nonexistence of a god but this position is accompanied by near certainty with just a hair of uncertainty. In this case, agnosticism is used to signify that the person is open to having their current beliefs challenged with ample evidence but the bar for acceptable evidence is placed rather high. They tend to be extremely skeptical of other people’s experiences and belief systems. It can serve as a way to claim open mindedness to another cosmology while judging those ideas as inferior by default. Richard Dawkins typifies the atheist version of this variant of agnosticism.

   Maybe you grew up being taught a non-standard definition of agnosticism? Or perhaps you grew up with the version I related in my previous paragraph? That particular approach to agnosticism is fairly common.

   Anyway, like a lot of belief systems, agnosticism occurs on a wide spectrum. Lots of variations exist across a continuum of possibilities. People can also be agnostic to some forms of belief/non-belief and less so toward others. Again, many, many variations are out there.

   Hope that makes sense. 🙂

   • I appreciate your contribution. In the piece, I wanted to relate the agnosticism that we lived. My parents loved us kids. I never felt like I was banned from speaking of religion. Rather, it was just dismissed and a thought-road that simpletons lived on. We agnostics knew better, and didn’t need the opiate of the people.

     When you’re growing up, you often don’t know what you don’t know. That was me.

     Thanks for posting your inventory on types of agnosticism. I wrote papers on it in seminary, but I don’t think I’ve seen it packed quite as tightly as you did. Well done!

     • Thank you for the kind words regarding my mini-treatise on agnosticism.

       One of my closest friends grew up in a household similar to the one you describe. Although, speaking of religion was actually discouraged. She later explored various churches out of curiosity. “What is this thing that my parents described as silly?” She remains an atheist and is very “live and let live” about others’ beliefs. One of her sisters is also an atheist. Another sister has a non-specific spirituality and the remaining sister is a non-denominational conservative Christian. Funny how people can grow up in the same environment but reach very different life outcomes.

       I grew up as a nominal Christian with parents who were also nominally Christian. I wasn’t told much of anything about other variations of belief. We barely even talked about religion, actually. I went through various transitions: nominal Christian → agnostic → agnostic atheist → agnostic → agnostic pagan (current day). The agnosticism part seems to be permanent. 😛 Actually, there’s been a hint of paganism since I hit the agnostic atheist phase. I guess that’s permanent, too.

       All of my siblings are Christian but mostly don’t bother with church.

       Where did your siblings fall? (If that’s not too personal of a question.)

     • Not too personal at all… 1 Wiccan (sort of), and one maybe Presbyterian… But neither has expressed much of anything about their faith. It seems they prefer to not talk about religion.

     • Oh wow, another pagan. Huh.

       My friend and her other atheist sister talk a little bit about religion & atheism but not much. The other two sisters are on the quiet side about their beliefs. Mostly, there’s not much talk at all between the four on religion.

       My friend and I have talked a lot about religion.

       I’m not in contact with my siblings. So, no talking at all there. When we were in contact, there was a little bit of talk and I had occasional spirited disagreements with my sister.

     • I try to be sensitive in personal conversations about religion. I’m fairly new at blogging, but I’m liking the fact that people don’t have to feel imposed-upon about a topic. If someone is uncomfortable with my blog, they can just stop reading. If the feel compelled to read it, hopefully it answers, or causes, a question they needed.

2. Hi David

   The evidence against creation being robotic is overwhelming.

   Really? Could you share some of this overwhelming evidence?

   *(By ‘robotic’ i’m assuming you mean things following natural affinities, right?)

   • Hi John,
     From the question I’m thinking that you might skimmed. Here’s what I wrote:

     “If it is true that God gives perfect freedom to the individual to either love Him or not, reject Him or accept Him, then the individual must have the freedom to make the choice. That choice must have negative consequences, or positive consequences, or it is a false choice. If it can only be that all choices produce a positive result, then you cannot have love, but rather automatons”

     Is that what you’re asking about?

     • Ah, that was your meaning of “robotic.” OK. I thought you might have been referring to Creation itself, as a whole, not just the human condition and the problem of evil.

       Your solution is, of course, not new, but I have to say it is thoroughly unsatisfactory as it does not explain animal suffering, or the suffering of innocents. The question is raised: Does your god favour the free will of the child molester over the child’s free will? It would appear so. It also raises the problem of omniscience. Conversely, the problem if good can be solved without any creative theodicy (excuse) which, naturally, makes it the stronger explanation.

     • I’m resigned to realize that I’m not equipped to solve God. Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn’t have to solve the cosmos. Still, we know what we’re studying exists, and we have a foothold in our fields. I don’t profess to know astrophysics, and Tyson doesn’t profess to know theology… Oh, wait. He does.

       No amount of sophistry can “disprove God”, and looking back I see how foolish I was. I realize not everyone will relate to my story. I’m happy if God put the one in my pathway who could relate. Maybe they’ll find encouragement.

     • Hi David

       I have to say, I always find it a little baffling when the theist defers to the “I’m not equipped to solve God” position, yet in the very next minute will profess to know that same God’s mind and celebrate his ways. Look at this post: it’s full of you “knowing” what your god is on about. With all due respect (and I mean that), this shell-game is a frustrating part in talking with an apologist. The rules shift on a whim, and that’s just not being intellectually honest.

       Now, it’s true, one cannot disprove God, the deistic notion, for example, is essentially free from final scrutiny, but the claims made by each theistic religion can indeed be disproved, one by one. The problem of evil is a philosophical problem. It does not physically disprove the idea of a personal (maximally good) god, but it does demonstrate the thorough inadequacies of the hypothesis. The apologist defers to scripture for almost everything, but here scripture is no help, so man has invented creative excuses—theodicies—to save their god: to excuse it from responsibility for a world saturated with meaningless suffering. Again, these are all manmade excuses carefully crafted to explain why things are not as they should be if matter had been persuaded to behave by a benevolent hand, rather than a coherent explanation for why things are as they are in the presence of a Creator.

       If we are to be intellectually honest we must look at the hypothesis and accept this simple truism: A genuine truth does not tolerate excuses. A truth that requires annotation is not a truth, but a fabrication. Where the theologian is forced to rescue an incompetent spirit who has, for one imaginative reason or another, lost total control of his creation, the gospel of the malevolent hand stands unchaste, uncontaminated, and inviolable. As an explanation for the world that has been, is, and will be, malevolence is complete. Yesterday, today and tomorrow are made clear without a cover story or inventive pretext.

       So the question is: which hypothesis is stronger: A benevolent Creator, or a maximally evil Creator?

       Before answering, consider this simply fact. If this world were good, if it had been crafted by a maximally powerful artisan eternally mindful of the happiness of all things then surely a child’s first reaction would be to giggle and to laugh, to greet this treasure with a resounding exaltation of liberated joy, not panic and utter dread. Indeed, if entering this existence was something to celebrate then maternity wards across the planet would reverberate with the elated sounds of spontaneous and uninhibited delight, not the agonising shrieks of terror as new-borns found themselves awake in a world hopelessly given over to the production of misery.

     • You don’t seem to have read my last answer, so writing another is not encouraging. Please re read and focus on the Tyson – astrophysics, David – theology relationship…

       Know what I know, yes. Know all, no.

       We’ve got history, so know where this conversation goes. I’m going to leave it here. Thanks for the read, John.

     • Hi David

       I did read that, I even liked it. You’re mistaken, though. I didn’t delve into your mistake, but if you like I can now. Superficially, the analogy sounds good, but it’s incomplete. There is nothing at all stopping you from studying astrophysics, or at the very least, reading papers published by astrophysicists. The same applies for Tyson. He can read any number of theological papers and get to know the subject in great detail. Or what, are you trying to argue only a Christian can study Christian theology? That’s a ludicrous concept, and I think you know it is.

       David, hypotheses are tested in the marketplace of ideas. You can no sooner quarantine your ideas from scrutiny than Tyson, Vilenkin, Kraus, or Carroll can quarantine there’s. Tyson can know as much, or more, than you regarding theology, as you can, in theory, know as much, or more, than him regarding astrophysics.

       So, as we’ve established your error, then we get back to the question of which is the stronger hypothesis regarding a Creator.

       The evidence (the hard teleological evidence) all indicates a malevolent hand. Nothing, nothing at all in this world even hints at a benevolent artisan.

       Consider this simple fact: the biological mechanisms experiencing feeling pain existed in this world for nearly 2 billion years before the first empathetic thought was ever teased loose. Would a benevolent hand have shaped his masterpiece in such a way?

     • John,

       Post after post, you’re never shy about (1) making preposterously large assumptions, (2) insisting there is a contest that simply doesn’t exist, and (3) declaring your idea “won” or the theist idea “lost” your imaginary contest. Your comments are often reductionist toward an idea you disagree with, yet absurdly assumptive toward the idea you’re manufacturing. The pattern isn’t at all upsetting. It’s just so repetitive that I wonder if you even notice you do it.

       A couple of examples

       1- You assert that the earth is 2 billion years old… Staunch advocates of evolution admit that carbon dating is worthless beyond their own claim of 20,000 year accuracy… And they also twist themselves inside-out trying to defend the flaws clearly found by creationists in carbon-dating.

       http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

       “Settled Science” is always a highly assumptive claim that often requires substantial revision.

       2- You try to impose that my telling a personal story from my personal experience must be defended in the marketplace of ideas. The secular humanist intellectual bigotry came from my life experience, not out of some type of academic application. Are you seriously insisting people must defend their childhoods?

       Try humility and introspection. Read Philippians 2:1-13. It helps me get outside of myself, and it might help you.

       Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

     • Hi David

       I didn’t say the earth is 2 billion years old. The earth is nearly 5 billion years old. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago, and hasn’t been interrupted since. How many genesis’s have occurred in this time no one knows. We are aware of one, of course, but a search for genesis 2 only began in earnest a few years ago.

       What I said was the first experientially tangible action potentials (nerve cells) emerged 2 billion years before the empathetic thought was ever teased loose. David, the astonishing Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness firmly asserts that the presence of a neocortex does not preclude non-human animals from experiencing genuine suffering. Indeed, the signatories to the declaration stressed that the required neurological apparatus for total awareness of pain—and the emotional states allied to that—arose in evolution as early as the invertebrate radiation, being evident in insects and cephalopod molluscs, such as octopus, Nautilus, and cuttlefish.

       Pain and suffering, you see, are built into this world… Not love and kindness.

       What does that tell you about the Creator?

       Now, you seem to be a terribly confused about radiometric dating. C-14 is very effective for anything younger than 50,000 years. Older things, like rocks, are dated using the breakdown of potassium to argon.

     • You and Cambridge can enjoy the imaginary construct you’ve created. Incidentally, “strongly asserted” proves nothing. I’m not a scientist, so I like to respect my limits there. I imagine there are debate forums where folks love to debate the finer points of scientific topics. “Applied Faith” is a resource to feed those seeking God, and to empower the walk of Christians.

     • Hi David

       “Applied Faith” is a resource to feed those seeking God, and to empower the walk of Christians.

       That’s fair enough, but why then do you spend so much time trying to create a cartoon of reality? Interestingly, you accused me of “making preposterously large assumptions,” yet here you are in post after post attacking nonsense strawmen. If and when you present these distortions they will be met and challenged in a calm and rational manner. I don’t dislike you, I salute your efforts to reduce suffering, but I will take issue with your positions when they are so clearly in error.

       And why are you attacking the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness? It was a landmark work and has been universally accepted by neurologists across the planet. So overwhelming, in fact, has been the response that Professor Marc Bekoff has since proposed an even broader declaration, a Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience, where sentience—and by extension a total awareness of suffering—is defined as the “ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity.” It is a definition that would reach out to include even the modest protozoa.

       As you can see, David, it is clear that suffering is very nearly omnipresent in this world, present and acting against even the shallowest expressions of what may be considered ‘happiness’ for billions of years before life acquired the mechanisms to feel the first twangs of joy. Life, 3.8 billion years old, is stained with a most ancient paranoia; a gentle but persuasive insanity known to all.

       So again, what does that tell you about the Creator? What does it tell you about the choices (the directed contingency, as William Dembski puts it) of the Creator?

       Ultimately, one must confront the question: Which hypothesis is stronger; the one that mirrors the physical, teleological evidence, or the one that has nothing (nothing at all) to support it?

     • You came here. You’re not in your depth because you are neither seeking or desiring information and encouragement to ally your faith in God.

       I wouldn’t presume to argue science on your website. If accepting God’s healing hand is impossible for you then you’re not ready for what I have to offer. Circular arguments with a devout atheist are what I encourage people to resist. It’s tedious, fruitless, and a waste of time.

     • Hi David

       A “devout” atheist? That’s an interesting, but erroneous turn of words.

       And you’re right, I’m not here to be swayed by your mythology, but I am here to keep you honest on this, a public blog.

       And how could it be a waste of time if you’ve learned dating of things older than 50,000 years is done by measuring potassium’s decay, amongst other elements with huge half-life’s, not carbon-14, as you thought? You’ve learned something, and isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t it good to expand your knowledge? In the future, you won’t make this same mistake, so in that sense, you’ve grown. You’ve been enhanced and bettered by this conversation.

       Can you not see the wealth and joy in that?

     • John, once again, scientific theories of dating aren’t proven aren’t relevant… I’ll google it, but it’s not my field. Based on your statements, you appear to be a devout atheist. It’s your religion,,and that’s what you choose to believe. Butting heads with you is a waste of time. I’d prefer not to moderate you, so let’s call it a day.

     • This comment seems to have been placed in the wrong location. Let’s see if “replying” here will get to to the right location.

       Just a few facts here.

       There are 23 homologous pairs of chromosomes in all diploid human cells (46 chromosomes total), not “26 sets.”

       Carbon-14 dating was never, is never and never will be used to date the planet, becuase the half-life of C-14 is about 5000 years. So, C-14 dating is good up to about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, but not beyond that. The planet’s age has been determined using radioisotopes with half-lifes of hundreds of millions or billions of years.

       Carry on.

     • Thanks for the catch. Transposed in a brain cramp. As for dating, I’m not a scientist, but we find substantial rebuttal on the claims scientists make on the subject.

       I do find it interesting that there hasn’t been any rebuttal on the evidence of ID.

     • Also, no idea how WP posts these comments. I just take them as the come.

     • I think I figured out how to the replies in the right place. We’ll see if I’m right.

       “As for dating, I’m not a scientist, but we find substantial rebuttal on the claims scientists make on the subject.”

       Yes, I’m sure you do. I’ll be sure to alert the geologists about this “substantial rebuttal.”

       I assume from the fact that you’ve brought up the issue of dating that you are a young earth creationist? I ask, because I don’t want to make incorrect assumptions.

       “I do find it interesting that there hasn’t been any rebuttal on the evidence of ID.”

       Well, one of the big problem with ID if one is to consider this as science is that it’s hypotheses are untestable. They are inherently “unrebuttal.”

       For example, the fossil record suggests that there was a transition in hominid evolution from quadrupedalism to bipedalism. So, say our hypothesis is that this change was the result of the direct intervention by the Creator. Given how bodies work, presumably the Creator would do this by altering the arrange of the atoms in the DNA for a quadrupedal ape.

       How can we tell if this is what happened? How can we tell if this is the mechanism that explains the transition from quadrupedalism to bipedalism? To put this in a more hypothesis testing way, if this transition was not the result of direct intervention by the Creator, what evidence would contradict or disprove the hypothesis that it was? Is it reasonable to expect that we’d be able to find this evidence if it existed?

       I would add the that another problem with ID is that, as John as already pointed out, the Creator appears to be one mean, nasty, twisted sumofabeetch. As result, I would think that ID theories create more problems for Christians than for secular biologists. Simply saying “I’m not equipped to solve God” doesn’t really help us much. If I said to you “I’m not equipped to solve every single problem in evolutionary biology,” wouldn’t you use this as another reason to reject evolution?

     • Hi David,
       Brilliant scientists are among the followers of Jesus Christ in 2015. I’m happy to let them answer the scientific questions. I’m also fine with admitting that the mysteries of history greatly outweigh the solved understanding in science. Science cannot prove the “Big Bang”, nor can they disprove creation. It’s ok to admit your limits… Goodness knows I have plenty.

       Theology offers young-earth, day-age and several other interpretations of Genesis. For me, the jury is still out. There are some really great specialists in Old Testament I would defer to. I respect theologians on the young-earth side (Towns), as well as the Day-age side (Erickson).

       I invite you to check out my About page to better understand why I write what I write.

     • Sorry, meant to spell this ““unrebuttalable.” Guess that’s what happens when you make up words.

     • It was very well made, though.

     • “Brilliant scientists are among the followers of Jesus Christ in 2015. I’m happy to let them answer the scientific questions. “

       I’m not entirely sure what you are referring to here. Would “science questions” include questions about the geological and biological history of the planet? Which questions would you let the scientists answer?

       “I’m also fine with admitting that the mysteries of history greatly outweigh the solved understanding in science.”

       So, given that mysteries remain, how should we go about the process of solving or reducing some of these mysteries?

       “Science cannot prove the “Big Bang”, nor can they disprove creation.”

       Again, I’m not entirely sure what you mean here.

       With respect to the Big Bang, it’s not so much about “proving” the Big Band as it is about testing the hypotheses about the Big Bang to see if observations, both past and future, are consistent the hypothesis. Strictly speaking, in science, nothing is ever absolutely, positively “proved.” However, there are some conclusions of science about which one can have a fairly high degree of confidence.

       With respect to “creation,” which version of “creation” are we talking about here? There are thousands of these in different human cultures, so the word “creation” is a little broad.

       You know, strictly speaking, science can’t disprove the hypothesis that we all just poofed into existence a millisecond ago. I’m serious here, if you think about it, this proposition cannot be “disproved.” Given that, I’m not sure that it’s saying very much to say that “science can’t disprove creation,” but I await further clarification of what the word “creation” means to you.

     • A final note.

       Now, just to be clear here, I’m just talking about when we’re doing science. I’m not talking about when we’re engaged in other types of human activity.

       But when we’re doing science? If I say that your hypothesis is not subject to or vulnerable to disproof? This is not a compliment.

     • “Disprovability” is a necessity in science, of course. I really appreciate your contribution to the comments. I think this was a good place to delineate between the goals of science and the goals of faith. You just inspired another article. Thanks!

3. You seem to have come from the constraints of a mind-over-matter anti-theist upbringing. I would hardly classify that as secular humanist. Secular, sure. Humanist? Not so much.

   • Thanks for reading, Jason. I never really applied any formal analysis to our theology growing up. I just wanted to share the reality of what it was like. Good to hear from you.

   • Just a few facts here.

     There are 23 homologous pairs of chromosomes in all diploid human cells (46 chromosomes total), not “26 sets.”

     Carbon-14 dating was never, is never and never will be used to date the planet, becuase the half-life of C-14 is about 5000 years. So, C-14 dating is good up to about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, but not beyond that. The planet’s age has been determined using radioisotopes with half-lifes of hundreds of millions or billions of years.

     Carry on.

4. Great post David, although the video didn’t work. There is some evidence that many people who are raised atheists don’t stay atheists.

   • Video?

     • Oops, looked like a video at first. I see what it is now, clever.

Comments are closed.