Have you ever tried striking up a conversation with someone about the existence of God only to find that they have no interest in the question? Trying to continue the conversation is like trying to talk to a two year old about quantum mechanics. Strategically, you must find a way to get the unbeliever to see that the question of God’s existence is relevant to his/her life. I think the most effective approach is to appeal to common existential questions that every human wonders about. This could include:
- What do you think happens when you die?
- Where did everything come from?
- What is the source of our moral awareness?
Perhaps the most fruitful approach, however, is to focus on the meaning and purpose of life. Every human being is seeking to discover the meaning and purpose of life. Perhaps you could ask, “Do you ever think about the purpose of life? Does it have any meaning? What is your purpose?” If they answer in the affirmative, proceed to point out that if they are concerned about the purpose of life, then they ought to be concerned about the question of God’s existence because meaning/purpose can only be derived from the intention of an intelligent mind. If there is no God who created us, then there can be no purpose/meaning to life. If there is no God, then life is truly meaningless. In other words, meaning is tied to the existence of God. Our search for meaning is inexorably tied to our search for God. Only if we find God can we discover the meaning and purpose of life. If that’s not enough to shake them out of their apathy, probably nothing can!
See also Dealing with Apathy
* If they say “no,” ask if they once thought about such questions, what they concluded, and why they concluded what they did. This will provide you with some insights into their thinking that may prove fruitful for furthering the conversation.
Thinking to Believe 
December 1, 2017 at 3:27 am
I have no problem talking to the unbelievers; I tell them to stay that way because knowledge will set them free while belief makes them stay in thrall.
I have no problem talking to believers; I tell them that belief will only keep them in thrall because what they need is knowledge..knowledge will set them free, that is the truth and the truth will set them free.
what did Jesus say about belief?,,,Well he didn’t he spoke about knowledge and you do not believe,,,,
read it again for the first time”
“Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.”
In other words Jesus said:
“Listen carefully. I’m speaking sober truth to you. I speak only of what I know by experience; I give witness only to what I have seen with my own eyes. There is nothing secondhand here, no hearsay. Yet instead of facing the evidence and accepting it, you procrastinate with questions. If I tell you things that are plain as the hand before your face and you don’t believe me, what use is there in telling you of things you can’t see, the things of God?”
That is the truth of Knowledge not of belief…the people have unbelief because they look not for knowledge but only for belief and why they remain blind leading the blind looking for something they make up.. Make believe. like children playing in the marketplace…
Let’s play make believe and go to church……….listen to the make believe preacher and let you imagination take you into fantasy land the
Dizzineeland of Religion…..it’s everywhere….hahahahahaha
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 1, 2017 at 1:26 pm
As an atheist myself, I can give you the answers I would give to those questions:
“What do you think happens when you die?”
If you’re referring to the body, then the evidence is pretty clear that it’ll rot away. If you’re talking about the mind, I’m reasonably certain it’ll feel the same way as I felt before I was even conceived…i.e., nothing, nonexistence.
“Where did everything come from?”
The only rational answer to that question is “I don’t know.” Nobody does. Several theories in physics make some interesting predictions about multiple universes and fluctuations in some sort of eternal quantum void, both of which could explain the existence of our universe…but again, nobody knows for sure.
“What is the source of our moral awareness?”
That’s easy. All social animals have certain behaviors that are selected for during their evolution that allow them to interact safely and successfully (even piranha know not to attack one another). Humans, being among the most social of social species, benefit greatly from cooperation, which allows for the benefits of living in a group (defense, hunting, etc.) and, more importantly, specialization. Behaviors that promote social cohesion therefore are selected for. We call that behavior “morality.” It’s just something that develops intrinsically among all social species because it enhances their survival.
“Do you ever think about the purpose of life?”
No. I don’t think there’s any evidence that any such “purpose” exists.
“Does it have any meaning?”
My life? Sure! That’s really the whole reason to life, isn’t it? We spend our lives searching for the things that give our lives meaning, and we pursue them. Or at least we should. Some people just do what’s expected of them, regardless of whether it gives them any meaning. To me that’s the saddest thing…allowing others to decide what gives your life meaning. That’s something personal, something we should all figure out for ourselves.
“What is your purpose?”
Again, I don’t think life has a purpose, other than perhaps to simply exist, since if it didn’t exist…it wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
“meaning/purpose can only be derived from the intention of an intelligent mind. If there is no God who created us, then there can be no purpose/meaning to life.”
I agree that meaning and purpose can only be derived from the intention of an intelligent mind…but that mind is OURS. WE have to determine what gives meaning to our lives. Why would you want anyone else to determine that for you, even if it’s a God? So I disagree with the second sentence.
But I would ask…how would God deciding for you what your purpose and meaning are actually change anything? If he said your purpose is to have kids and perpetuate the species, would your life feel any more meaningful to you? What if you don’t want kids? Wouldn’t you then feel burdened, rather than instilled with a sense of meaning?
No thanks. I’ve spent a lifetime finding all sorts of gems that have given my life meaning…and to have someone impose HIS meaning on me would be such a disappointment. BTW, what purpose and meaning do you think God has decided for you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 1, 2017 at 8:01 pm
Hello Jason (T.R.)
I used to be a firm believer in Orthodox Christianity and I’ve tried the approach you recommend without any significant success. I then played Devil’s Advocate and composed an essay that was liked by a good number of people. It is reproduced below:
The trend for most intelligent people is towards secularism and with good reason: religious leaders have let people down with their claims to provide moral guidance and a promise of a better afterlife. Instead, they imposed control and indirect taxation on people they were meant to serve, with the greatest burden on the poor, who could not imagine that they could get a better life without them! Additionally, they conserved ritualism, sacramentalism and religiosity to bore away present-day people seeking some spiritual uplift! Various philosophers have contributed much more towards an ethical approach to life than religious leaders have.
My short essay is an attempt to view life from a scientific perspective and to gaze in wonder at the beauty of our planet, which is teeming with life – hence my reference to Vitalistic Theory: The view that life, and all consequent biological phenomena, are due to a ‘vital force’. Suppose that the Being we call God is no more than this Vital Force?
God, or the Vital Force, has been extremely active on this planet: there are the plant and animal kingdoms with millions of varieties of species, and the fungi and the unicellular organisms (e.g. amoebas and plankton), and all the micro-organisms, e.g. bacteria and viruses.
Now the purpose of life is clear: each species is genetically configured to perpetuate itself; to compete for its existence with other species; to overcome adverse environmental factors by evolving; and, to flourish in environs that are favourable to it. Some become extinct but the Vital Force remains unaffected! There are still millions of forms of life that continue to exist. The God so many human beings pray to may be similarly unaffected.
The Vital Force theory may explain some of the mysteries of life for the human species. Without a need for benevolence, nor malevolence, all the miseries that we perceive as human beings (e.g. disease, famine and mental suffering) are merely the consequences of our struggle for survival, and the ability of relatively small groups of elite human beings to dominate the rest of us.
In the past, religious leaders used to subdue and dominate the masses. Currently, elite groups of secretive organisations fulfil these roles. Examples may include the Freemasons and the Illuminati. Links for more info on these and other secretive organisations are included below:
http://listverse.com/2012/11/21/top-10-scandalous-freemason-secrets/
http://listverse.com/2007/08/27/top-10-secret-societies/
To conclude, the purpose of life for each species on this earth it is to: exist, reproduce and flourish. For most of us human beings, we also want to: enjoy our lives; love one another; avoid wars; respect our planet and all its life forms; engage in intellectual and artistic activities; enjoy hobbies and pastimes, and to improve the quality of life for ourselves and future generations.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 1, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Dear Jason (T.R.),
Would you please delete my first post which was annotated, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” The second link in that post was to information about the Illuminati but it has been taken down and no longer works.
Thank you,
Dinos
LikeLike
December 6, 2017 at 9:49 am
Derek,
I appreciate insights into the unbeliever’s mindset, thank you. Interacting with people who in all seriousness are convinced God does not exist is fascinating.
You said, “The only rational answer to that question is “I don’t know.” Nobody does.”
Given your atheist worldview and the context of the remainder of your contribution, on reflection, can you see this statement as self refuting?
“The only rational answer to that question is “I don’t know.” Nobody does. ”
Or do you stand by it as a coherent statement?
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 6, 2017 at 12:30 pm
“I appreciate insights into the unbeliever’s mindset, thank you. Interacting with people who in all seriousness are convinced God does not exist is fascinating.”
You’re welcome. I’m always willing to answer questions about atheism. And I myself am fascinated by those who are convinced that God DOES exist.
“Given your atheist worldview and the context of the remainder of your contribution, on reflection, can you see this statement as self refuting?”
I don’t. Furthermore, I don’t know why you would ask that question. What is self-refuting about not knowing something? Claiming knowledge of something for which one cannot have knowledge is self-deceiving. Hundreds of years ago nobody knew the cause of lightning. Oh, they would tell you it was Zeus, Thor or some other god expressing his anger…but they didn’t know. And saying they DID know it was Zeus or Thor or whomever was not only not the honest answer…it was simply wrong. The person who said, “I don’t know” was not only honest…but right. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing; there’s everything wrong with claiming knowledge where none exists.
I’ve lived all over the world, and have had the opportunity to speak with believers of many, many religions. One thing that is consistent among all of them is that virtually all of them appear to be completely certain of their beliefs. Yet their doctrines are all mutually contradictory. Even within Christianity there are many denominations that vehemently disagree with one another. So most if not all of them MUST be wrong.
So how to determine which is right? They ALL have their holy book claims, their supposedly successful prophecies, their supposed miracles, their testimonies, etc., yet still have completely opposing views, so obviously those claims do not serve as evidence of truth.
The one thing to look for in any religion as a red flag that it is almost certainly false is how it regards faith. If faith is a virtue, then that’s a huge red flag, since only a false religion would have any need for faith. Any true religion would have the evidence on its side. What really matters is evidence, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be.
The evidence we do have is that we have several successful theories in physics, with quantum mechanics at the top. All its testable predictions proven true, which give weight to its untestable predictions, such as that there are multiple universes, perhaps even an infinite number of them. And that universes can spontaneously generate as quantum fluctuations. Other theories indicate that universes can oscillate infinitely. There’s not enough evidence to justify belief in ANY of them yet…but it’s more than any religion can provide. It doesn’t require resorting to the supernatural, and it’s consistent with a natural universe. Until we have more evidence, the conclusion for where it all comes from must remain, “We don’t know.” There’s nothing self-refuting in that…it’s simply the truth.
LikeLike
December 6, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Only one statement comes close the actual existence of God concept and that me is: there is that which exists beyond which a greater cannot thought. The interesting part to about that is the definitions that are forthcoming. Atheists and agnostics come closer to reality but religion cannot possibly be close because of its insistence of the belief that they KNOW with Absolute Certainty that they alone are correct.
LikeLike
December 21, 2017 at 6:50 pm
Are the readers informed about the whereabouts of Jesus from his age eighteen to thirty years about which very strangely there is no scriptural records a period know as the lost years. Jesus proved to be extremely brilliant in the subject religion when he was twelve years old and bore back the elder Jewish priests and scholars in discourse as recorded on the scriptures. So it is well expected that such an individual ought to have made more such or similar achievements thereafter later in his life – at least a few times which would create such a flutter in public as to attract mention on the scriptures , up to the age of thirty. But there is no mention as if to imply that he had gone elsewhere or was abroad. From the well researched works (Jesus in India. BBC documentary which can be seen also in you tube) it appears that Jesus had indeed gone abroad to India and studied at the jaggannath temple at puri having done so easily by joining a trade caravan of the ancient silk route ,he also studied Tibetan philosophy at a monastery at ladakh in Kashmir. The work of Edward T Martin (you tube – Jesus in India) is more revealing. Its commentary says that in Jerusalem Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene and she later in her life had gone to a place in France and deliverd Jesus’s daughter . Because of her migration to France there are no later mention nor relics of her in record at Jerusalem or near- about. Also the aforementioned work states further that Jesus expired to early on the cross, even the two thieves had to be interviened with in order to get them dead before the Sabbath. A kind Roman soldier made a sort of autopsy and according to the commentary lied about the death of Jesus when he was actually alive. The commentary followed in stating that Jesus was taken to the tomb but was alive then and afterwards Joseph of aramethia took the body away and helped Jesus to recuperate and he went back to India and lived in Kashmir where his grave can be found. The commentary also states that originated of the two of the Bibles end with the death of Jesus .The details about the ascension of Christ was added later in Paul’s Bible .Without prejudice to the Lord Jesus Christ in the highest heaven, this is for information on the alternate sources of information .Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 21, 2017 at 8:04 pm
Hi Mr Chetia
If you are interested in alternative sources of information, you may find the books written by Peter Cresswell of interest. The author’s latest book, “The lost narrative of Jesus: Deciphering the Transfiguration,” explains that maybe this event is a showing of Christ’s survival of his crucifixion.
A puzzling feature of Christ’s appearances after His earthly death is why His wounds should remain visible since He had the power to heal – remember how He healed the ear of Malchus (the servant of the High Priest) after Simon Peter cut it off with his sword?
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
December 21, 2017 at 9:35 pm
Good morning Mr. Dinoconstant. I shall certainly search the web for the book you mentioned and read it. Thank you
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 22, 2017 at 6:01 am
Good thing we have BBC and YouTube to tell us what really happened to Jesus ! ….. my goodness, it’s amazing how gullible humanity can be.
Merry Christmas to all.
Naz
LikeLike
December 23, 2017 at 2:42 am
To my opinion you tube and BBC presentation are portraying the serious methodical research on the subject.It serves as a map which the one who is interested could reference for further enquiry on his own to get his results.
To my humble opinion the practical aspects of jesus’s life shall get people bogged down with despairing results relating to the historicity of jesus,or despairing results about a process of mythologisation of a very local enlightened human who was an illusionist and a white magician with immeasurable benevolence and who met a very natural death but was made into a deity.
Whatever must have been the occurrences on the ground then, but today it is the deity which is important – it is the deity of “christ’ which important. Two thousand years of that progression has given the christians the gift of christ.It is the meaning and the thoughts associated and forming the essence and allure of christ which is important and not the idol of jesus. Not the second coming of jesus as certain communities in America are getting fanatic about.Inadvertently their fanaticism actually creates a religion and a god of their own making fraught with widespread hate intolerance and violence which is antithesis to any religion.All religions should peacefully coexist and help the spiritual uplift of all people.The approach towards god should be indeed philosophical and not practical.
In this season of peace celebration and goodwill between man and man
A very merry christmas to all
LikeLike
December 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Interesting analysts……………
LikeLike
December 23, 2017 at 6:30 pm
What evidence ?
Religion says: “I see it because I believe it”
Atheism says: “I believe it because I see it”
Secularism; aka, common sense says:
Prove all things by knowledge
Only knowledge can set you free,
With belief, there is tyranny
In thrall you can’t see.
LikeLike
December 23, 2017 at 11:39 pm
Leo the greater. I refer to your latest post which I am considering to be a corollary to my earlier post. By writing “approach to religion should be philosophical and not practical ” I had meant philosophical not in a strictly academic fundamental sense but in a more broad sense that encompasses the need for men and society for the general benefits it bestows. Becoming relegionless might not set men free in as much as then man shall replace god. Taking himself to be the one most important every man shall maximise for himself only – his consumption procurement safekeeping of all necessary resources to the detriment of the other man. There shall be a violently competitive rat race where nearly all and everything shall be destroyed approaching the finish line. So religion should be understood “philosophically” for the good it does to society without undoing it. Thank you
LikeLike
January 6, 2018 at 3:50 pm
I enjoyed this post. It introduced the practicality of apologetics. And I agree with your conclusion that if such discussion, reflection, and inquiry is rejected, then it would be time to be aware that nothing will break through their apathy. I might add for discussion purposes, why might we see instances where believers who leave the faith and our churches become so apathetic to ever come back and live triumphantly for God? What produces this apathy? Circumstances? Relationships? The condition of their soul? God permitting them to be reprobate? A mixture? Such would be an interesting statistical or psychological survey or scholarly work on the subject matter.
LikeLike
January 6, 2018 at 5:30 pm
“I might add for discussion purposes, why might we see instances where believers who leave the faith and our churches become so apathetic to ever come back and live triumphantly for God?”
I have known many people who are former Christians, and most of them say they left simply because they ceased to believe. Belief is not a choice, but the product of a number of psychological events. Some former Christians lose their belief as the end result of some tragedy that befalls them, or as the result of their pastors marginalizing gays or speaking out against women’s rights. Others read the Bible and learn all the parts that their church doesn’t talk about—like God supporting slavery, ordering babies slaughtered, torturing people in hell simply for believing in the wrong religion (or even the wrong sect of the right religion). For most of my friends, it is the attacks on science that destroyed their belief.
And once they’ve left, it’s not apathy that prevents them from going back…it’s simply that they no longer believe. And they are happier not having to accept claims they believe are wrong. Former Christians tend to be happier than Christians in all areas but one: a sense of community. I have often heard them bring this up. They were used to having a sense of belonging to a like-minded community, but non-believers don’t tend to get together as a community (although that’s slowly changing).
In 2006, white Evangelicals were a quarter of the US population. Now they’re just 17%. By far the biggest losses are in those under 35, largely because of their church opposition to gay rights and women’s rights, as well as Evangelical support for divisive, conservative politicians. Meanwhile, the non-religious have become the largest “religious” category. And growing.
So clearly Christians are pushing a message that resonates less and less with the population. I suspect their solution will require a modern Reformation to bring Christianity in line with established science and modern morality.
LikeLike
January 6, 2018 at 6:43 pm
Difficult to understand why some people call apathy to delusion, a deficiency. And persist in their yearn for the mythological. The community of belonging?Yeah I miss the community centre dances and garden parties I grew up with in those long ago days when telephones were cranked with long rings and short rings as code numbers; our number was 14; 1 long ring and 4 short rings and our number was 14; every family in our 200 family village knew who the call was for but eavesdropping was still frowned upon.
But those days are so far away; almost like they never happened, except in our minds. Nevertheless, it’s especially keen to note when one has gone through the transformation of community in half a life time, when modern Shopping Centres and Mega Malls supplanted the churches and the church community centers diminished with their rise and the rise of intermittent coffee shop and fast food chains and today?
Yet again the trend continues and the entire world community where humanity speaks to humanity in a place that is not a place anymore than heaven is a place; the cyberspace is now the modern cyberplace………….
LikeLike
January 7, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Referring to it as apathy is nothing more than a feeble attempt to shift the blame for the loss or lack of belief away from the teachings of the believers. The primary purpose of religion is to instill moral values. The issue is in how one interprets scripture in order to justify those values. At one end of the spectrum of interpretation, one can teach moral codes through the metaphorical story telling of the various authors of the sacred texts. At the other extreme, one can make the assumption that the texts are the absolute, inerrant word of God and thus are be believed and obeyed without question, even when such interpretations of scripture is at odds with contemporary rational knowledge of everyday experience. It’s not the fault of the non-believers when the “true believers” insist that the Earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs went for a ride on Noah’s ark and then demand that everyone else accept their interpretation of scripture or face eternal damnation.
LikeLike
January 8, 2018 at 8:16 pm
” Invention is the mother of necessity “.Much have been expressed by the readers of these posts, and the other discussions over several months, where our, let us say community was spirited in defending their stands and perspectives . Now it appears that cutting across various positions if a mean average is taken then there shall become evident the vestiges of the religion which humankind shall follow in the future, say around circa 2097
LikeLike
January 9, 2018 at 10:54 pm
“Belief is not a choice, but a product of a number of psychological events.” Derek (?), I find this statement uncanny. Belief is surely more than a reducible and causally determined result. “Former Christians tend to be happier than Christians in all areas but one: a sense of community.” Also, I don’t find the fact that ex-Christians who say they are happier is satisfactory of their unbelief or departure from the Christian worldview. They may have problems with a certain congregation, pastor, or church leader’s advice on social matters, however such is not convincing of believing such claims to be false. Nor are attacks on science such a satisfying justification for apostasy. I find your statement on community being the only thing that makes a former Christian not as happy a generalization that needs a lot of evidence for such boldness. I’ve never heard of former Christians who’ve had happier times in areas of establishing objective meaning in their life? Nor do I hear of them establishing sound reasons to be moral that would make them happy? Or the justification of a lot of features within society that need a transcendent Creator to provide ontological grounding for the existence of such important things in human life (e.g., Mathematics, reason, love, human relationships, etc.)? “I suspect their solution will require a modern Reformation to bring Christianity in line with establish science and modern morality.” I believe you haven’t heard of Renaissance of Christian Philosophy in the Anglophone world? Such a movement has revolutionized Christian thinking in correspondence to a lot of stuff concerning philosophy. Especially ethics, which concerns morality. I believe society has become postmodern that doing such a reformation would escape analytically-based reason entirely (I am speaking more so on your comment of “modern morality”; I don’t know if you’re speaking about modern ethically objective subjects, or you are talking of the postmodern movement). On the part of science, Christians have already done enough to integrate themselves within the discipline as encounter and uphold scientific research and methodology (ever heard of theistic evolutionists? Or intelligent design theorists?) I also don’t believe the statistics of evangelicals within the population of the US declining make a good argument for the fact that Christianity would be considered untenable currently. Statistics like these happen to fluctuate very often, and although it is very significant, there is still a huge portion of the globe’s population that are Christian (around 2 billion to be specific).
LikeLike
January 9, 2018 at 11:02 pm
By the way, thank you for your input Derek, I appreciate it.
LikeLike
January 15, 2018 at 11:37 pm
“Derek (?), I find this statement uncanny. Belief is surely more than a reducible and causally determined result.”
Not really. Just try to make yourself believe in Santa Claus, or NOT believe in God, even just for five minutes. Notice how you can’t do it? That’s because belief is not a choice. You can WANT to believe in something, you can ACT like you believe in something, you can even put yourself in situations that could facilitate belief, but you cannot simply choose to believe in something and have it happen.
“Also, I don’t find the fact that ex-Christians who say they are happier is satisfactory of their unbelief or departure from the Christian worldview. They may have problems with a certain congregation, pastor, or church leader’s advice on social matters, however such is not convincing of believing such claims to be false.”
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. But if you are saying that ex-Christians are not happier without all the baggage and fear of hell that comes with Christianity, you are mistaken. It has been my experience from speaking with a lot of ex-Christians that they often feel angry and cheated for being lied to and made to feel like they are worthless and undeserving of salvation.
“Nor are attacks on science such a satisfying justification for apostasy.”
Well, that is what drove me away from Christianity more than anything else. To me, critical thinking and evidence-based belief are of vital importance. The anti-science statements of faith by the major creationist organizations are the antithesis of that.
“I find your statement on community being the only thing that makes a former Christian not as happy a generalization that needs a lot of evidence for such boldness.”
Again, all you have to do is actually ASK former Christians to learn this for yourself. When asked what they miss most, they almost invariably say the sense of community…and little else.
“I’ve never heard of former Christians who’ve had happier times in areas of establishing objective meaning in their life?”
That’s because “objective meaning“ is a rather meaningless term. What objective meaning can be imposed by a God? How is that any different from a person imposing what he believes is objective meaning on any other person? Former Christians realize that meaning comes from within. Why would anyone want someone else to tell them what gives their lives meaning? Would you want someone else to tell you what job you have to do or whom you have to marry? And let me ask you this: what objective meaning is there to your life? I have asked this question of Christians before, and have yet to receive any definitive answer.
“Nor do I hear of them establishing sound reasons to be moral that would make them happy?”
Morality is easy to explain in evolutionary terms. Social species have certain advantages over solitary species. They can cooperate and spot dangers easier, for example. And every single social species has to evolve certain behaviors in order to be social. Even piranhas know not to attack one another, for example. Humans are among the most social of species, and we call behavior that facilitates social cohesion “morality.” Those humans who lack social skills tend to have greater difficulty breeding and even surviving. Thus, genes that encourage friendship, cooperation, etc. are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.
But if you want and even simpler explanation, if this is the only life we have, doesn’t it make sense to make the best of it? And isn’t treating people the way you want to be treated a good way to facilitate that?
Finally, what objective morality is there in the Bible? God commits or condones slavery, slaughtering children, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, etc. morality is a learning process, with society on average improving over the centuries. Virtually every civilized, sane person alive today is more moral than the God of the Bible, for we would NEVER think of inflicting such harm on others.
“Or the justification of a lot of features within society that need a transcendent Creator to provide ontological grounding for the existence of such important things in human life (e.g., Mathematics, reason, love, human relationships, etc.)?”
There are certain aspects of the basis for our universe that we cannot yet answer, but that does not mean that the default answer is God. The default answer is “we don’t know.“ And it is important to realize that every time we have increased our knowledge of the universe, the answers have ALWAYS turned out to be purely naturalistic. Not once has something assumed to be naturalistic turned out to have a supernatural exclamation.
As for reason, love, human relationships, etc., all those can be easily explained through evolutionary causes.
“I believe you haven’t heard of Renaissance of Christian Philosophy in the Anglophone world? Such a movement has revolutionized Christian thinking in correspondence to a lot of stuff concerning philosophy.”
I’m talking about something much more profound to bring religion in line with observed reality. Too many people still take the Bible to be the basis for their morality and their understanding of the natural world, and that only hurts society.
“On the part of science, Christians have already done enough to integrate themselves within the discipline as encounter and uphold scientific research and methodology (ever heard of theistic evolutionists? Or intelligent design theorists?)”
I don’t really have a problem with theistic evolutionists, because they accept evolution and alter their religious belief to fit the scientific evidence, rather than the other way around, even if they do not have evidence to justify their belief in a God.
Intelligent design, however, is nothing more than a rebranding of creationism. It’s leading proponent, Michael Behe, admitted in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case that there has never been a single experiment refuting evolution and that he had to alter the definition of theory to make it useless in order for intelligent design to be considered scientific. If you have not read the transcripts of the trial, you really should. They are eye-opening to intelligent design believers.
“I also don’t believe the statistics of evangelicals within the population of the US declining make a good argument for the fact that Christianity would be considered untenable currently. Statistics like these happen to fluctuate very often, and although it is very significant, there is still a huge portion of the globe’s population that are Christian (around 2 billion to be specific).”
Oh, certainly, there are still billions of Christians in the world. But the more educated nation becomes, the less religious it becomes. Intelligence and education are directly correlated with less religious belief, less crime and better health. The United States has lag behind other advanced nations in that regard, but Christianity has been gradually losing followers, something that has accelerated since the development of the Internet and access to greater information. Christians dropped by 8% between 2007 and 2014 (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/). That is a massive drop off, and clergy everywhere have noticed it. And that drop has only continued since then. These numbers do not fluctuate by much. The trend continues downward.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 15, 2018 at 11:38 pm
“By the way, thank you for your input Derek, I appreciate it.”
You are welcome.
LikeLike
September 9, 2018 at 12:03 pm
Rebel with a Cause:
If saying, “I don’t know” is self refuting by stating:
““Where did everything come from?”
The only rational answer to that question is “I don’t know. Nobody does.”
How can that statement possibly be false?
It is important to know that the conclusion of your argument that “I don’t know. Nobody does.” is self-refuting is not necessarily false, if it could be supported by another, more valid, argument. For example if you could say that you do know where everything comes from; or, if you know somebody else who does know where everything comes from.
If you do not know and nobody does know, how can that be false? And if that cannot be false then how can Derek’s statement be self refuting?
That is, “I don’t know. Nobody does” ………know where everything comes from.
Do you know where everything comes from? Do you know anybody who does know where everything comes from?
As far as anybody on this planet is concerned, the only thing you can offer to refute Derek is endless beliefs, speculations, hypotheticals; which is to say, you can offer nothing that could be supported by another, more valid, argument.
“The only rational answer to that question is THE FACT, “I don’t know.” Nobody does. ”
Do believers believe in a myth or do believers know the myth they believe in.?
LikeLike