 |
|
|
|
|
June 10th, 2014
02:40 PM ET
Meet the atheist ... who believes in GodOpinion by Frank Schaeffer, special to CNN
They are meaningless because participants lack the objectivity to admit that our beliefs have less to do with facts than with our personal needs and cultural backgrounds. The words we use to label ourselves are just as empty. What exactly is a “believer?” And for that matter what is an “atheist?” Who is the objective observer to define these terms? Maybe we need a new category other than theism, atheism or agnosticism that takes paradox and unknowing into account. Take me, I am an atheist who believes in God. Let me explain. I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood. I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator. It seems to me that there is an offstage and an onstage quality to my existence. I live onstage, but I sense another crew working offstage. Sometimes I hear their voices “singing” in a way that’s as eerily beautiful as the offstage chorus in an opera. My youngest grandchildren Lucy (5) and Jack (3) are still comfortable with this paradoxical way of seeing reality. Most grownups don’t have the transparent humility to deal with the fact that unknowing is OK. But Lucy and Jack seem to accept that something may never have happened but can still be true. For instance they take Bible stories we read at face value, and yet I see a flicker in their eyes that tells me that they already know the stories are not true in the same way boiling water is true and can be tested—it’s hot! It's like that mind-bending discovery from quantum mechanics that tiny objects like electrons can actually be in two places at once and act simultaneously like a particle and a wave. Maybe my grandchildren will embrace quantum theory, and won't look for ways to make the irrational rational by hiding behind words like “mystery” in order to sustain their faith in science or God. Or maybe they'll embrace apophatic theology, the theology of not knowing. Atheists in the Bible Belt: A survival guide But it's not the easiest thing to do. Our brains are not highly evolved enough to reconcile our hunger for both absolute certainty and transcendent, inexplicable experiences. Nor can I reconcile these ideas: “I know that the only thing that exists is this material universe,” and “I know that my redeemer liveth.” Depending on the day you ask me, both statements seem true. And I don't think I'm alone in that. Behold, the six types of atheists We’re all in the closet, so to speak. We barely come out to ourselves and never completely to others. I have met people who claim a label - evangelical or atheist - until you really get to know them. Then, things get more complicated. Many of us, even the devout, have many more questions than answers about God and religion. In other words, people just like me: atheists who pray and eloquent preachers who secretly harbor doubts. I believe that we’re all of at least two minds. We play a role and define that role as “me” because labels and membership in a tribe make the world feel a little safer. When I was raising my children, I pretended to be grownup daddy. But alone with my thoughts, I was still just me. I’m older now, and some younger people may think I know something. I do: I know how much I can never know. Many Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians inherited their faith because of where they were born. If you are an atheist, you hold those beliefs because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born. Don’t delude yourself: There are no ultimate reasons for anything, just circumstances. If you want to be sure you have "the truth" about yourself and our universe, then prepare to go mad. Or prepare to turn off your brain and cling to some form or other of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. You will always be more than one person. You will always embody contradiction. You—like some sort of quantum mechanicals physics experiment—will always be in two places at once. Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His latest book is "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace." The views expressed in this column belong to Schaeffer.
« Previous entrySister Act: Singing nun wins 'The Voice' in Italy
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
(CNN) - All the public debates between celebrity atheists and evangelical pastors are as meaningless as literary awards and Oscar night.
An atheist is one who does not believe in gods or a "creator". The author clearly states he believes in his "creator".
The author argues his use of rationality and reasonable evidence in some parts of his life categorizes him as an atheist.
This is patently false.
And atheist is someone who lacks the belief in a deity- you can believe in a creator if that creator isn't a deity. It's really all the word means.
The author doesn't define it as his parents, which he could have if that is what he meant. But his use of quotes to signify a special meaning implies something beyond what is rational – in fact, he points out this very fact in the article – reconciling his reasonable and unreasonable beliefs.
True, he could be referring another species or something non-godlike when he mentions "his creator". This would allow him to identify as atheist, though not consistently skeptical.
Atheists can and sometimes do believe in unreasonable things like the zodiac or psychic powers or ghosts.
I have no idea what his parents have to do with this, and I was referring to your definition- he doesn't actually give one. Atheists believe in all kinds of things, again, the ONLY thing that atheist means is that you lack a belief in a deity- that does not mean you have to lack a belief in a creator, if your belief about a creator doesn't involve a deity.
A creator in this instance, by its very definition, is a deity. There is no splitting the two if he also claims a spiritual feeling and guidance, etc.
"This instance" refers to everyone's various beliefs. In your mind, the only definition of a creator is a deity. But if someone holds a belief about a creator (say an unconscious energy without immortality,etc, or magical turtle- or whatever), that isn't a deity, they can still be an atheist.
The problem is when people want to change the definition of atheist. It really means nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity.
sorry but i say again...creator in this instance means a deity. He is talking about some kind of being that exists outside of the universe in order to have made the universe and everything in it.
johnbiggscr, I'm afraid you are taking my comment out of context. My reply was to no jinx about the definition of atheism used in their comment. The author of this article does not actually define atheism.
You can kick and scream all you want, atheism means a lack of belief in a deity- only a deity. Not anything else. It's simply a fact. It is a very simple word.
Can you offer your definition of a "deity?"
A god. Not terribly helpful, I know.
I think the most commonly accepted definition is an immortal being with the power to know and do all. It certainly doesn't mean just anything magical or supernatural.
"...atheists who pray ..."
Guffaw!
There are atheists who pray. And start churches. And belong to a religion. They just don't believe in God.
"There are atheists who pray."
Now that's one I hadn't heard before. Can you expand?
Do they not pray at the atheist churches? I think the story said they did, but I could be wrong. My question, though, would be 'Who are they praying to?"
I don't understand it. Nor do I understand why atheists hold conventions. Or start up churches.
Google it.
If you are spiritual and an atheist – there is a good chance prayer is a big part of your life. There is evidence that prayer works.
Prayer doesn't have to be directed at a deity.
Nope – I'm still not seeing it. Who would I be praying too if I don't believe in deity?
"Prayer works" – Citation? I've yet to see anythig peer reviewed that showed this (indeed the opposite has been my experience).
there are also democrats who voted for Bush – we call them "confused"
G to the T, you can pray to anything, including living people, unknown forces, magical animals, the wind, the universe. What makes you think you can only pray to a deity?
I guess that is praying to.. NOTHING..LOL example of the dumbing down of America.
this is tooo funnyll praying.. act talking to one self... also can be a symptom if insanity..
Yes, there are congregations of secular humanists which for all intents and purposes are adherents to a church.
I guess it depends on your definition as to whether they really "pray" meaning at least in part to invoke supernatural intercession.
Not all believers "pray" to invoke supernatural intercession though. The prayers of a believer can be very similar to an atheist.
no, atheists do not form churches or pray. They get together only to find other sane people in the world to hang out with.
No, there really are atheist churches.
Some atheists are like you and only get together to find other sane people in the world to hang out with. Some atheists are not interested in that. Right? I mean – some atheists get together to smoke crack. Or some atheists get together to help the homeless. It just depends.
http://sundayassembly.com/about/
Yeah, an atheist 'church' has been formed to fulfill a similar role to any other church – to have a place to gather with like minded individuals and discuss and talk about the meaning of life, ideals, goals, etc.
"I know how much I can never know." This article sound more like an argument for agnosticism than anything else.
That quote is a non sequitur
We’re all in the closet, so to speak. We barely come out to ourselves and never completely to others.
----–
What? Why are trying to speak for everyone?
I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of what I’ll call “my creator.”
-----
Hah? Jibberish.
You're just a sad lost puppy babbling.
wow...you atheists really get upset about this stuff....don't hear any theists getting their shorts in a knot.
you dont huh? try coming back to an article that criticizes religion and take a good long look.
No on is criticizing atheists in this article...maybe you should read it.
We arent talking about the article, and when you were responding to the poster you didnt seem to be either. You seemed to be making a comment about the people posting.
And as such I say again...come back when the article is criticizing religion and see the posts that believers make.
except for the War on Christmas...
Another word for "jibberish" in this context would be "nonsequitur," or in other words invalid logic. Atheists (and rational theists if that's not an oxymoron) should all be upset at invalid logic.
This is ignorance on the level of a first year college student.
Atheist is a word, your ignorance does not change the meaning of the word. Atheist who want to believe in a god are agnostic or woefully stupid.
Agnostic is a word too, and it doesn't mean an atheist who believes in god.
Agreed, but it is a better descriptor for people who fence sit than atheist.
There are people who aren't on the fence who are agnostic- it doesn't refer to the belief about the existence of god, it refers to the belief about the ability to prove/disprove the existence of god. Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist- most atheists I know are agnostic. Someone who is on the fence, is simply on the fence. They might be agnostic too, might not...
Those who claim to believe in a deity and also claim to be atheists are the ultimate fence-sitters and deserve to receive large splinters in their glutes.
It is actually like marriage. We can all say that we have doubt about our commitment at times and we can also say that we know we can't live without our spouse. Marriage's last when the "leap of faith" ends internal debate. Like the old song says "I have DECIDED to follow..." well, you know the rest.
" ... to follow Jesus."
"...no turning back, no turning back."
or be prepared to make a decision.
If this were a school assignment, he would have received low marks for not supporting his thesis. He asks the question "what is an atheist" and he doesn't even bother to define it. Where did he get the idea that atheist=believing in evolutionary theory?
"If you are an atheist, you are that because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born."
One hundred percent bullshit, and offensive, presumptuous bullshit at that.
I am an atheist because there is no proof of god. I am an atheist because history shows that gods always reflect the culture by which they were created, evolve with that culture and die when that culture dies or that god is no longer needed. I am an atheist because to believe in a god would just be me lying to myself.
My question to the author: Why does he lie and call himself an atheist when he is anything but?
Why is this "If you are an atheist, you are that because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born." BS but when Dawkins says the exact same thing, Atheists stand up and cheer? Dawkins dismiss, with a contextual wave, religious experience. I guess you thing he is BSing too?
A lot of people hold double standards.
Not a double standard at all. On the one hand you have belief and all the teraining and indoctrination that is required for the belief. on the other hand you have NOT believing. They are NOT the same thing, so no double standard. To be a double standard, you would need to examine what is believed , not what is not believed.
One thing is clear from the article though...he is one confused individual. His entire article is pretty pointless, but maybe he can get some help if he takes the article to a non-religious qualified mental health professional. That boy just ain't raht.
Sorry, but you don't need all you imply to believe in God. Another double standard.
sorry, forgot I am talking to the guy that redefines everything to suit himself. So lef me ask you a question
Banana's are incongruent to service palm bush vacation?
That might be difficult for you since I redefined every word.
I often refer to the dictionary for my "redefining". I don't know what you are talking about.
You have to admit, both religious people and non-religious people, like atheists, hold double-standards. I agree with the poster on his comment.
I don't care what Dawkins says. People believe what they do for their own reasons, though it is not a coincidence that most people follow the same religion as their parents and their culture. It's not a coincidence that people turn to religions that they've heard of, and don't mysteriously worship gods from cultures they've never encountered.
My atheism does not come from "a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born." Perhaps I can credit my parents because they did not force us to adhere to a specific religion but that simply resulted in a catholic sister, a jewish sister and myself. Perhaps it comes from the century in which I was born because I my doubts will no longer end in being tortured or killed for heresy, and by the fact that we have a reasonable overview of the history of multiple cultures.
But my realization of my atheism is my own, branching from my love of history, uninfluenced by any outside opinion. Can you say the same of your own faith?
– But my realization of my atheism is my own, branching from my love of history, uninfluenced by any outside opinion. Can you say the same of your own faith?
Yes.
So, dala, you never heard of christianity before you converted? I realized I didn't believe in gods before I put a name to it.
No. You just said your realization of your atheism is your own, branching from your love of history, uninfluenced by any outside opinion.
You can say that. I can say that. It is easy to say. I don't believe you honestly demonstrate it. How are your views uninfluenced by any outside opinion? Really? I think you are describing arrogance, not an unbiased opinion.
Tallulah: I know you're not looking for someone to just agree with your every word ... but I do.
Your post is a logical fail. Non-belief (atheism) has been individually recreated uncountable numbers of times while you cannot name a single religion that has been recreated independently EVER.
Ouch. I guess there'll be fancy tap dancing to refute this one.
Indeed. He is an atheist in the same way that I am a rampaging cyborg, i.e., not.
You are an Atheist because your culture and your parents define "proof".
Proof of god would be verifiable evidence of something that cannot be accomplished through natural, human (or on the off chance) intelligent extraterrestrial means.
my point exactly.
I was always an atheist, and my parents were asked to not bring me to sunday school anymore because they could not deal with all of my questions. I was 6. My parents then stopped going to church and took a closer look at their belief. My father denounced all religions for the same reason I did. My mother never mentioned god anymore, and really did not appear to miss it.
God is simply the anthropomorphsing of imagination. No two people imagine god the same way. If you sat any two individuals down, you would eventually find where they disagree on some point of god....the gods they imagine at least. That suggests that god , at least any definition that any human uses, exists soley in the imagination. No one has ever been able to show differently.
If there are gods or god, it is not likely that any definition is even close to what that "god" is. I would doubt that there is any actual sentience to "god" ...it just doesn't seem productive for all these thousands of definitions of god, actually billions of definitions, but not a single one can show even the cslightest degree of accuracy in their definitions.
Something I've noticed: No 2 people explain their atheism the same way. Nor is their explanation as to why they imagine I believe in God the same. Like, that God is simply the anthropomorphsing of imagination. That is different from what other atheists insist that God "simply" is.
Dal – maybe part of the problem is believers not being able to provide a consistent defintion on their end?
And believers are that way because their parents play fast and loose with 'proof'?
"If you are an atheist, you are that because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born."
One hundred percent bullshit, and offensive, presumptuous bullshit at that.
--------------
Agreed. !00%.
You are an atheist because you refuse to accept the evidence or evaluate it on reasonable terms. You expect the evidence to fit your own stringent standard and therefore fail to see the real evidence that is there (and I'm not talking about woo-woo nonsense, but actual historical, literary and scientific evidence..not to mention philosophical...)
Reasonable terms to you has a much lower standard than it does in logic.
"You are an atheist because you refuse to accept the evidence or evaluate it on reasonable terms."
Nope. Care to spin the wheel again?
Atheism is very simply the opposite of Theism, meaning... no belief in god.
This idiot appears to think one can believe and not believe the same thing at the same time.
Just wow. Such gibberish.
Big fat load of twisted definition crap. I think I'll call a cow a basketball from now on......
Puts a whole new spin on dribbling.
True that!
I don't argue with the notion of "unknowing".
How can anyone "know" for certain any of the great questions:
– What is sentience?
– Why are we here?
– Is there some kind of universal spirit?
– Is there sentience after death?
We can't, and philosophers still have jobs and get to stay up late at night searching for "truth".
But this statement is dismissive and bunk:
"If you are an atheist, you are that because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born."
No "book or two" led me to disbelief in God(s) and my parents remain religious.
"No "book or two" led me to disbelief in God(s)..." True, but in my case, reading the Bible sure did help.
I won't argue that but in context he doesn't appear to be referring to the bible as one of those books or two.
I agree with him that, "Maybe we need a new category other than theism, atheism or agnosticism that takes paradox and unknowing into account." However, he should have listened to his own advice and applied that to this article.
That whole sentence is problematic. Agnostic means that you acknowledge that we can't know. We don't need to redefine it, we just need to use it properly. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic believer.
In that case most believes would be agnostic, since I don't know too many who could tell you what they know for sure about anything theological. The lack of solid theological basis for beliefs is why atheistm / agnosticism flourishes. People aren't aware of the actual evidence put forth by peer-reviewed, credentialed scholars. They only know what the popular persuasion of religion is and only have that as a model to evaluate.
Yes, I'm sure a lot of believers are agnostic- I'd say most people I know are agnostic either way. But I do think there are a lot of believers who think they *know* that god exists for a fact.
"since I don't know too many who could tell you what they know for sure about anything theological."
Good luck getting the believers around here to admit that. I rarely come across one that doesn't claim to KNOW God exists.
Thomas Henry Huxley (the man who coined the term agnostic) said:
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason cannot rationally justify either the belief that a deity does exist nor the belief that no deities exist.
Perhaps someone should hand this man a dictionary.
Especially since there is a word to describe exactly what he is - agnostic.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable
Or that they are knowable but the person doesn't know.
Not really the definition, but nice spin, topher.
What's wrong with it? If you think there MIGHT be a God, but you don't know, doesn't that make you an agnostic?
I'd chock him as a Deist more than anything. He believes in a spiritual realm and a "creator". Unless he's talking aliens, that's deism.
Certainly not "atheism"
I award the author no points.....the whistle goes "Woooo Woooo"
Cool article! Next I'd like to meet the vegetarian who eats steaks, the pacifist who carries a Glock 42 pistol and the kid who plays Angry Birds to get his homework done.
This article is ridiculous. By definition the author is NOT an atheist. If you believe in god and a spiritual force guiding you, you are not an atheist. Amazing what CNN editors approve.
Yep!
At least the author admits he isn't sure about anything. That will come in handy soon.
Now you're revising the definition. You can be spiritual and believe that fairies guide your life and still be an atheist. The ONLY thing that "atheist" means is that you don't believe in a god. Period. That's it.
More re-invention of definitions. Typical.
You nailed it! Typical far left nonsense. Redefining terms to mean something they do not mean in a lame effort to make a point.
"Typical far left nonsense"
Whaaat?
Typical right-wing opinion!
Is this the same Frank Schaeffer whose dad was the author and theologian Francis Schaeffer???
It appears so. His father is Francis.
Typical of who?
Those who claim to be an atheist-agnostic or agnostic-atheist, etc.
How so? People who refer to being agnostic atheist are people who understand that one word refers to the belief about existence (atheist) and the other word refers to the belief about the ability to prove or know for certain (agnostic).
It's people who want to use "agnostic" to refer to "undecided" who have redefined it as a word describing belief about existence.
I'm an agnostic atheist Toph, so I'll bite. Where am I redefining anything?
I think it is always good to recognize that you do not know anything for sure. Even the example of the boiling water being hot can be explained away as an illusion, or a dream, or a trick of the senses (touch a warm thing and a hot thing at once and your body will react as if you just got burned).
Everything we experience here on Earth is all filtered through our own perspectives and everything is up for debate when it comes down to the "truth" of it.
I firmly believe that we get to choose what we believe in. We choose which experiences leave a mark and which thoughts and facts make their way into our consciousness. We are in control of our beliefs and we can choose to believe whatever we want to.
I choose to believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and that belief results in me doing my best to try to become more like Him while accepting that nothing I can do can make me worthy of the gift He gave me with His sacrifice.
This belief makes my life better and it gives me the hope of eternal salvation with my Creator.
Do I know I am correct? No. But I have faith that I am correct. I don't think you can really "know" anything. Everything you think is true is merely your belief that it is true. Those who believe that they "know" things are lying to themselves, and are attributing more power to themselves than is appropriate.
One of the best posts I've read in a long time. Thank you Dan.
I also believe in Jesus Christ as my savior, but I didn't grow up with it. I turned to Jesus when my drug addict mother went to jail for the first time. Jesus helped me through some trying times including suicidal tendencies. Without God, I would not have made it.
That doesn't mean that I don't have doubts creep up. Sometimes I am ashamed to admit that I can get caught up in atheists' opinions when they appear to have a good point. However, my intuition and heart always bring me back to Jesus. I will never "know", but I will always know what the truth is.
God bless.
Thanks nmatney353. God Bless you as well.
I too have a lot of those dark thoughts that Jesus has got me through. I too came from a very atheistic/agnostic background but came to Jesus later in life, and I too get a little bogged down in the atheist rhetoric at times. I feel like we have a lot in common. Thanks for sharing your story with me.
Keep fighting the good fight. Very much love to you in your walk with Christ.
I would be more inclined to say that you got yourself through the tough times. No God needed. Give yourself credit. God was merely a placebo.
Would the same logic still work for you if a Hindu says "Krishna" got him through the tough times? does this mean Krishna is real? would you consider this evidence of Krishna's existence? Obviously not.
your doubts I would say is because a your are starting to have cognitive dissonance between logic/reality and trying to conform this to a belief in which you do not wish to release.
Most people believe not because it is plausible or any evidence to suggest this...but because of emotion.
Marz101,
Everything you have ever done is not through your own actions, but through the actions of countless people whose contributions to this world made it possible for you to have a decent life in a great country. Giving yourself credit for anything is prideful and borderline arrogant.
If you are not giving credit to others for your accomplishments, you are not giving credit where credit is due. I believe that giving credit to God for everything in this world is more than justifiable. If you don't want to give credit to God, then at least admit that you don't deserve the credit either.
'Everything you have ever done is not through your own actions, but through the actions of countless people whose contributions to this world made it possible for you to have a decent life in a great country. Giving yourself credit for anything is prideful and borderline arrogant.'
Poor argument. How you arrived at where you arrived at may be down to the influence of other people but what you choose to do at that moment is up to you. Do you seize the moment?, act cautiously? ignore it? etc. A person's life is still the sum of their choices regardless of the driving force behind the situation that led to those choices.
Only our post-modern society believes things because of emotion, so while some of your criticisms are valid they do not actually apply to religion, which there are still many people who hold to precisely because of intellectual honesty and scientific pursuit.
I have a friend who suffered a spinal injury and can't walk so he uses a wheelchair to give him a more satisfactory life
Yes, acknowledgement of our lack of understanding is fine...replacing this with wishful thinking which is not consistent with the reality we live in is childish.
Faith is the excuse you give yourself to believe something when you no you have absolutely no good reason to believe it.
Essentially admitting you have faith you have committed intellectual suicide. You are saying that your position or belief has absolutely no weight or merit to its claims, that it cannot hold up to the basic of scrutiny. A claim in which has no evidence to support it, at all. That is what you are admitting when you say you have faith.
Anything can be believed on faith, but logic tells us not everything can be true.....so your mechanism that you are using to derive fact from fiction is faulty and purely hinged upon wishful thinking.
Marz,
Everything you have every believed in your entire life is based on faith. You believe you exist and that this reality is "true". Both thoughts are completely not provable. Without that as a foundation, all of your other beliefs fall apart as well.
The only difference between my beliefs and yours is that you believe in the world and I believe in Jesus.
Until you come to understand that both of our beliefs are equally valid, you will be caught in a never-ending spiral of prideful knowledge chasing.
Ecclesiastes 1:14
I observed everything going on under the sun, and really, it is all meaningless–like chasing the wind.
I can test my existence....so can other people. You just demonstrated this by typing across a series of networks and responding to me. No faith required.
This is called evidence and it is line with reality as we know it.
If you are trying to play semantics and be an absolutist eg "We can't know anything for sure 100%". well that is fine, but in that regard the pink yellow donkey that flew over Mars 10 seconds ago is also a plausible idea...
Sorry, but your unreason doesn't belong on the same shelf as my reasons. It belongs on the shelf with the likes of Thor and the Kraken.
and don't worry about the bible quotes...because for every nice one I can pull out twice as many evil ones.
that and the fact that quoting a book doesn't give your case any more weight.
'The only difference between my beliefs and yours is that you believe in the world and I believe in Jesus.
Until you come to understand that both of our beliefs are equally valid, you will be caught in a never-ending spiral of prideful knowledge chasing. '
They arent equally valid at all, not even close. The idea that believing in a mystical being is supposedly as valid as a reality we can see, feel, hear, taste and touch is just ridiculous.
Until YOU come to understand that 'choosing to believe' (in the absence of any positive support for it) and 'believing in the world' are anything but equal, I suggest you are too far gone to recover.
"The only difference between my beliefs and yours is that you believe in the world and I believe in Jesus." is the sort of verbal jelly that defies being nailed to any walls of truth. It scares me that people who are that deluded, get a vote. Maybe democracy isn't what it's cracked up to be.
You might not realize it, but you are serving a god of your own. You are worshiping knowledge and intellect and treating science as your religion.
Just a note: All the knowledge an intellect in the world will not stop you from dying. You are in effect building enormous towers of facts and ideas only to have those towers come crashing down when you die. Eventually, everything you have ever done will be erased and your life will be forgotten. Every thought and idea you brought into the world will be wiped away by time.
You and I are both worshiping something, I just think that you chose the wrong god.
"You might not realize it, but you are serving a god of your own. You are worshiping knowledge and intellect and treating science as your religion."
What makes you think this? Can you provide an example?
"You are in effect building enormous towers of facts and ideas only to have those towers come crashing down when you die."
We know this is false, as the towers only grow as new generations add to it. Did Einsteins tower fall when he died?
I would have no problem believing in a god if evidence was provided to actually prove the existence of a god. But there is no evidence, so I don't believe in god(s). I also don't believe in elves, the Loch Ness monster or the existence of another living world in the center of this one. I do believe in things like boiling water, because the evidence is undeniable.
Tallulah131,
You put a lot of faith in evidence when you really cannot be sure that the evidence, or this reality actually exists. You have faith that these things exist because, if you didn't you would not be able to operate effectively in this world; however, any claim to be able to prove something based on evidence is untenable.
All of us are in the same position. We all know nothing. Those of us who tell ourselves that we know things are lying to themselves, and putting too much faith in the obviously flawed brain that we all tend to have.
There is no evidence that any god exists. There is ample evidence that humans invent gods in an effort to appeal to and control the unknown.
tallulah, there is also ample evidence that someone in 0 AD was killed on a cross, and yet his followers started a major world religion based on the belief that he had come back to life – at that time that could have been the most offensive thing possible to be preaching in the Middle East. So evidence is only as useful as the context in which its understood or evaluated.
jl, But there's no evidence that that person was divine, performed miracles, or was resurrected.
Of course you get to choose what you believe in. You just don't get to choose what is real.
...and you will also never get to know what is real.
How do you know what is real?
and for that matter you just admitted above "that we know nothing:" – so in default how do you know Christ is real and a God is real when you clearly stated "we know nothing".
You have contradicted yourself by trying to play the Depak "Woo woo" game.
I never said I knew Jesus was the real deal. I said I believe He is.
I am quite confident that I know nothing.
Oh Mr. Schaeffer ... this is classic, Deepak Chopra grade, religious "Woo Woo".
what a load of nonsense.
Mr. Frank Schaeffer, may I introduce you to another Schaeffer? I would recommend you read 3 books by Francis Schaeffer and see how he affects your worldview: "The God Who is There," "Escape from Reason," and "He is There, and He is Not Silent."
Sadly the son has been attempting to distinguish himself from his dad his entire adult life. Sad, his dad was a great man, a great thinker, and had the ability to see what lies ahead. The son is a comedy of confusion and nonsense. Stop publishing his drivel.
After I posted my comment, I just realized WHO this particular Frank is... That's such a shame to be under such godly teaching, and then turn out to turn not only theology, but atheism as well upside down and confuse both of their definitions. I don't know what could be going on in this man's life to be so confused...
Why does he have to be confused? He came to a different conclusion.
Absent the grace of God, all men are hopelessly confused. It's a consequence of the fall. Frank is proof of Scripture.
(Although I will concede that this essay is confusing.)
It is confusing.
There's a lot of "spiritual but not religious" cafeteria religion in this article.
Mr. Schaeffer appears to be tracking into the commonplace rejection of organized religion, but still wants to claim the spirituality of a believer and the empiricism of an atheist.
He feels this so-called paradox of 'unknowing' is something that isn't well defined.
It is pretty well defined. It is almost the textbook definition of agnostic.
From the OED:
agnostic,
1. A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God. Distinguished from atheist n.