Ricky Gervais writes an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Why I'm an Atheist.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/?fb_ref=article_top&fb_source=home_oneline
Seeing as my wife is out tonight and my kids are asleep I thought that I would write a blog post entitled, 'Why I'm not an Atheist' and see if I can make some sense.
Make sense?
Why I'm not an Atheist by Josh Mansfield
People ask ME all the time why I'm not an Atheist. Not really, I just wanted to start my article in the same manner that Ricky Gervais starts his but it just doesn't have the same ring to it. I've never been asked that question ever, and never will be asked why I'm not an Atheist, because it's just not what one asks someone.
I am a Christian. I know why I'm a Christian, but I've never really thought about why I'm not an Atheist.
Until now.
My first point of reference when thinking about this, is the fact that I often talk about Atheists as being hypocritical (in the sense I suppose that they see Christians as being hypocritical...). I say that people who don't believe in anything, still actually believe in something; they believe in nothing! Atheists reject the concept or notion of owning a belief system and yet, that is there belief. I don't think it's actually possible (unless you're a door frame or other inanimate object) to not believe. But that's a childish argument, and as far as I can tell, I'm no longer a child.
So if we all believe in something, why don't I believe in nothing?
Good question.
Gervais makes the majority of his points by referring to Science. Science is what human beings look to for logical explanations of the world around us. The tree outside my window is green because of the scientific processes that are working in it's roots, chemicals and the colour discrepancies in it's components. (Did that sound scientific, or just plain confusing...?). Science explains the process of everything that we can feel, touch, smell, taste, hear and see. The process...
But when I look beyond the sensual world, I'm not really interested in the process of life. When I consider how I'm supposed to live and act and why I'm supposed to exist, looking at the scientific processes involving my human body is not helpful one iota. I'm trying to find purpose.
Science, is useless at purpose.
So when faced with the question 'How do I exist?' - hand me a Biology textbook (one without too many diagrams please...)
But when faced with the question 'Why do I exist? - hand me a Bible.
The Bible is the most debated, researched, misunderstood and quoted book in the history of the universe. I'm not even going to bother with a google search for the stats on that one; it's just true. It has been stripped apart, split open, turned upside down, shaken, stirred and discussed over the years, but no one has been able to fault it; as in no one has been able to say, 'Hey... wait a minute, this bit says that Jesus' disciples were plumbers and plumbing wasn't invented back then'. If they could find faults in it, it wouldn't be the world's best seller that it is.
The historical evidence of large portions of the Bible exists. Don't 'wikipedia' that, go and find a reputable historian and check and you'll find they agree.
And I could go on... (historians believe that Jesus existed, secular historians like the Jewish teacher Josephus wrote about the amazing miracles of Jesus, even medical information in scripture is... well medically correct etc etc).
Ultimately though I think I know why people are atheistic. There are two main reasons.
Reason #1 Particularly in the developed world, we have things too easy. We are in control of our own lives... generally. When we get sick, we go to the doctor. When we get really sick we go to the hospital. When we need food we go to the shops. When we need a new boat we go to the Boat Show and when we need money we go to the in laws. We don't need to hand our lives over to God, because most of us are going to live quite happy and healthy lives and kick the bucket when we're between 70 and 100, which is quite a good innings really...
We're in control. We don't need God. So we don't believe in Him. That's my theory anyway.
Reason #2 It's because what people understand to be religious/Christian is not what is actually religious/Christian.
'Religion' is a set of traditional rituals and rules that people follow in order to appease said god or leader. True Biblical Christianity is neither ritualistic or law-based.
'Christianity', that is to be a Christian is to have a meaningful relationship with God where you live your life in a way that please Him, because you realize just how much He loves and cares for you. That's it.
I'm not an Atheist, because being an Atheist is too difficult.
How can you reconcile in your head and your heart that there is nothing more to life except the cards we are dealt here on earth? How can you truly believe that when you die, whether you are 99 or 9 months old, that's it!?
How can you reconcile in your head and your heart that our existence is a fluke, or that we evolve from monkeys when our bodies are so intricate and our human desires beyond explanation?
How can you reconcile in your head and your heart that you can do whatever you want to whomever you want, whenever you want, because once you die... once they die... it all ends?
How can you see a sunset, or a baby giraffe, or a flowing river, or the smile on a four-year-old's face and not think that there is more to life than a bunch of molecules moving around the planet?
It's too difficult.
So I'm not an Atheist.
So I'm a Christian instead.
Sorry bud. The bible is one of the most faulted books out there and isn't the best seller either. It's full of inconsistencies and nothing in it has ever been proven histrically correct, not once. The the scientific things you speak of like biology in the bible that is right, was around way before the bible. But you are right, being an atheist is hard. It's hard to go against family/friends. It's hard to search and find real answers. It's hard and so many just don't bother cause they're lazy or scared. And the belief in nothing system you write about is wrong. Atheist don't just believe in nothing. They just don't believe in tribal gods or cults. I'd also like to point out that many who defend the bible have never read it completely and don't really know what's in it. Ever read about all the rape, murder, theft and slavery commanded by god? No? Neither have most, but it is in there black and white. I'd be more than happy to give you a proper scripture lesson.
ReplyDeleteRC
Hey Josh. I agree. How can you look at a baby giraffe and think there's nothign but science behind such a strange and ungamely creature?
ReplyDeleteHey RC Thanks for reading my blog... With all due respect, I have actually read the Bible cover to cover and spent the last 20 years studying both it's content and it's historical accuracy... The evidence that I've found is pretty overwhelming. You could try:
ReplyDeleteThe Case For Christ - forgotten the authors name (former atheistic journalist)
The Christ Files - John Dickson
All the rape/murder/wars etc in the Old Testament are easy to understand if you look at the wickedness of the people who called themselves followers of God. If I were God, I'd probably allow all that stuff to happen to those people too seeing as they reject my (God's) existence. Thanks for commenting though...
... as a starting point if you're interested (not sure if you are though, but that's cool.)
Hey Brad - how did you find my blog post???
Josh
Thanks for your thoughts Josh.
ReplyDeleteTo RC: I disagree with your statement that there is nothing in the Bible that is historical. Have you ever read it? I have: the Old Testament twice (and many of the individual books many times, such as Isaiah, Ezekiel & Daniel); the New Testament a dozen times (and again individual books many more times). I'm guessing that is more than you've invested in it.
There is plenty that is historical in the Bible. For example, one criticism was that the Bible mentions Hittites. These people are mentioned regularly in the Old Testament but no evidence was ever found to validate their existence . . . until about a decade ago. So, let me emphasize that absence of evidence is not evidence of the Bible's falseness. It is simply an absence of evidence.
It's nice to see an argument from a Christian that is, at least on the face of it, based on logic. However, I would take issue with a couple of points:
ReplyDelete1) You say "When I consider how I'm supposed to live and act and why I'm supposed to exist, looking at the scientific processes involving my human body is not helpful one iota. I'm trying to find purpose." Well the problem here is that you assume, with no obvious reason to do so, that there IS a "purpose" to your existence. Why? What is it that convinces you that there has to be "more"?
2) "If they could find faults in [The Bible], it wouldn't be the world's best seller that it is." Firstly it actually isn't a best seller, just a consistent one. Secondly, there are many hundreds of faults in the bible that are acknowledged by all serious Bible scholars, Christian, Jewish and atheist. Just a couple of examples are the genealogies of Jesus in two of the gospels. They don't match. Jesus was supposedly a "carpenter" like his human father Joseph. This is a mistranslation of the Greek "tekton", which in those days meant "teacher" or Rabbi. It would certainly make more sense in the context of the gospels stories about Jesus' familiarity with "the Law".
3) The Bible was not even finalised until at least 400 years after the supposed date of the crucifixion. There were at least six gospels removed because they were either too "magical" or "childish" or politically dangerous. There is also strong evidence that much of the New Testament was written to coincide with the attitudes and thoughts of that old misogynist, Paul of Tarsus.
4) Unless you are a Creationist, you must be aware of the fact that God did NOT create all living things in a period of seven days.
5) Nobody claims, not even Dawkins, that man evolved from monkeys.
6) You say "How can you reconcile in your head and your heart that there is nothing more to life except the cards we are dealt here on earth?" It's easy. I do it all the time. Why would anyone think otherwise, unless they are told by someone else, usually parents? And why specifically the Christian God? If you have no more proof of his existence than the Bible or personal testimony from another human being, then there are hundreds of other belief systems with just as good a claim.
7) "How can you reconcile in your head and your heart that you can do whatever you want to whomever you want, whenever you want, because once you die... once they die... it all ends?" Do you really think that atheists are amoral? Do you think that the only source of morals is God? ALL the atheists I know, and I know a lot, are moral people with a proper sense of right and wrong. Research has shown that people of all religions and none make exactly the same moral choices when faced with moral dilemmas. It has nothing to do with religion.
8) "How can you see a sunset, or a baby giraffe, or a flowing river, or the smile on a four-year-old's face and not think that there is more to life than a bunch of molecules moving around the planet?" It's easy. Like this.
G'day LJ Dellar.
ReplyDeleteI feel like we should have a coffee in hand as we discuss this because your respectful and thoughtful response has me smiling in anticipation of a chance to reply...
I hope you won't mind if I layout my reply in 8 dot points, and although I'm sure that I won't ever modify your own stance, I'm going to at least cement my own faith as I respond to your ideas.
1. 'What is it that convinces me that there is more to life?' I think we are too intricate a creation to be given a life span of between 0 and 110 years. But on top of that, my understanding and appreciation of Scripture assures me there is a purpose to life. And anyway, if there's no purpose to life, why life a moral life? Why not just do whatever I want whenever I want? No I'm sure there is a purpose to life...
2. The genealogies at the start of the gospels are not the same because the different authors are trying to drive home different points through these. For example, if you read Matthew's genealogy you'll find there are three sets of 14 generations. Matthew is undoubtedly emphasizing the point that God is in control and his work through the Old Testament is intentional and thoughtful. If I was to write a genealogy of my family tree, I wouldn't include everyone either...
Any discrepancy that may come up in scripture can be traced back to it's original writings (Dead Sea Scrolls etc) and historians (or at least the ones that I have read from) are able to draw satisfactory conclusions and explanations for these. For example, check out Mark 16:8. Most scholars conclude that the last 12 verses were added because Mark seems to 'lack' a conclusion. I think that Mark finished where he did intentionally... but that's for another blog...
3. Although the Bible was not finalised until 400 years later, the gospels were written with 60-80 after Jesus died. Check out Luke 1:1-4. Matthew, Mark and John were eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Luke was a scholar/doctor and his work is perhaps even clearer.
Think of it this way. The history books talk of Alexander the Great. However, his story was only written down 500 years after he lived (by a guy called Arrian) and yet we consider it historical truth. I find it far easier to believe the gospels just quietly...
4. Yes. Well aware that the 7 days is representative of 7 periods of time. Did you know that essentially Genesis 1 is a Babylonian poem written to contradict the Babylonian creation myths (probably by Moses...). God could've created the world in 7 seconds though... The key point is that GOD created the world. He created it PERFECTLY and ORDERED. Check Genesis 1...
To me, it makes more sense that a spiritual being created the world, rather than a series of molecular accidents... but each to their own.
TBC
5. Yes... that would be ridiculous. Although I think it would be cool to see some half men, half monkey evolutionary species shopping at the local Woolies... I'm sure that you've got that one right though, because my University Science lecture certainly suggested that humans evolved from monkeys...
ReplyDelete6. There are hundreds of belief systems that exist, but the difference between these and Christianity is that Biblical Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. Biblical Christianity is not about works, ritual, symbols or tradition. It's about having a relationship with Jesus Christ...
7. I don't think that atheists are amoral. Certainly not. BUT who decides on an atheists standard for living? An atheist decides what's right and wrong for themselves! What happens if two atheists think different things? Who's right and who's wrong??!!! Argh that's too confusing for me! You see as a Christian we can see what's right and what's wrong through Scripture. If we disagree we can study the scriptures together and look carefully at what obedience to God looks like, and then (try to) do the right thing.
8. Lol.
I guess I can put it this way. I say that there is a heaven and a hell and that the Bible is our standard of truth.
You say something different...
If you're right... then at least I'm still living a life full of joy and happiness and when I die I will leave behind a legacy and a loving family.
If you're wrong though... and I'm right... well...
Anyway.
Thanks for the chat. I hope you feel like I've responded respectfully.
Cheers.
you didn't you were actually very smug and stupid. Most of what you have written is on par with what I would expect of a junior high school student which leads me to believe your not well educated. As for having different moral opinions what you need to realize is that morality is a result of culture. Culture while complex is not God. Your morals are a result of Secular culture not the bible otherwise you would probably believe in slavery, women aren't equal to men, and beating your kids into submission. Say what you want about belief but face this fact buddy, your a secularist whether you like it or not because society makes one. Religion was create by society and will be transformed by society (hopefully retired). Also, Humanity evolved from apes not monkeys I know its hard for someone not educated in taxonomy to understand but monkeys (a whole group of species) split off from a common ancestor with modern apes hundreds of thousands of years ago. And if you can look a Chimpanzee, Orangutan, or gorilla in the face and not see a glint of humanity then you really need open your eyes. Read up on prehistoric human culture and compare it to chimps very fascinating.
ReplyDeleteAll religion is man-made. End of story.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing. I feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading the comments too :)
For starters, historians do NOT concur that any singular individual answering to the description of JC of Nazareth (even without the "miracles") ever existed. Quite the contrary: the academic consensus is that the character is a mythic conglomerate of numerous messianic expectations, wannabes, and "urban legends" circulating around Roman-dominated Palestine within approximately a 200-year chronological "radius" centered around the time said individual is reputed to have lived. Moreover, Josephus wrote precisely three exceedingly brief sentences concerning this character and does not in any way, shape or form delve into the supposed "miracles" or comment upon said character's supposed status as sole/unique "son of god". Last but by no means least, if you have never actually read or studied the bible as LITERATURE (including literary deconstruction and parsing as well as historical and cultural context) then sorry, you can read that book for decades and never really understand anything beyond what church/religious dogma programs you to (THINK you) "understand." That's because the same dogma forbids critical analysis and, in extreme cases, any other reading but the fallacious literalist nonsense. Anyone who would glibly claim historian academic consensus on the literal personhood of the JC character, especially being so lame as to claim Josephus wrote extensively about said character -- say nothing of actually stating "medical" information in the bible is "accurate" with a straight face and expecting anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would believe him, hasn't got sufficient firsthand experience with reality, let alone legitimate and substantive postulates, to take seriously.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be rude but honestly, you were rude first, by expecting everyone who reads this on the internet to be too stupid or too brainwashed to know better. And I'm neither.