Why theists can’t be freethinkers
Ian | 21 February, 2008 | 18:12The term “freethinker” as it applies to atheists/agnostics/deists/secular humanists (etc.) tends to get bashed because it seems to imply those who believe in God are close-minded. Open-mindedness is a positive in this society, and being willing to accept any idea seems to be the ideal.
However, when it comes to the God debate (capital G for an interventionist type), there is only one way to be open minded. That is you have to be able to describe an (possible, plausibility is up for debate) instance where you would change your mind on the issue.
As an atheist I can say that I would accept a Christian God under some of the following circumstances (which all come down to evidence, this list is also not comprehensive):
- Jesus returns and the rapture ensues (that’d be damn compelling evidence there)
- The efficacy of Christian prayers is repeatably shown to be greater than that of other religions (i.e. there is no natural explanation why it works) (if it was shown that Muslim prayers worked better would Christians abandon their faith?)
- I die and end up at the Pearly Gates and Saint Peter
Now I pose the question to those Christians (and other theists) who claim to be “freethinkers;” under what circumstances would you lose your faith?
Be open-minded, but not so much that your brains fall out.
Subscribe to posts
Denial of the belief that we are saved and connected to God through the Jesus Christ. I will be back, this is good discussion.
OK then. I do hope that your list is, as you stated, not comprehensive, Ian, for this list isn’t at all realistic.
For example, if you die and meet your Maker [stereotypical images and pop-culture visions of Heaven aside], it would be infinitely too late to do you any good. Christendom’s sourcebook, the Bible, states that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as God, because in His presence His existence is pretty much a given. On the other hand, we have Hebrews 9:27 which reminds us that man lives but once, after which he faces the music. Life is the decision point.
So you would believe [once you've died and gone to your eternal destination], but you will have no CHOICE in the matter as you have here on Earth. This means YOU wouldn’t change your mind about God’s existence, so much as God’s presence would change it for you whether you’d like it or not!
Your second scenario is unworkable for the simple presence of bias. If we’re honest, who would take such a study upon themselves? Likely someone with an axe to grind, Christian or otherwise. And what standard of measurement would you use to determine whether prayers were answered? God is not a vending machine. He has a will of His own. How would you determine whether a prayer was answered when the answer was “no” or “not right now” or something other than the present affirmative? You nor any one else would truly find such a study to be compelling evidence for the simple fact that you could always find an objection to methodology or motives. It would always be suspect.
Speaking of objections, let’s say that Jesus did return in your lifetime. Let’s even say that Darbyism [i.e. - the premillenial pre-tribulational Rapture] turns out to be correct. There’s still no guarantee that you’d find such evidence compelling. You might not believe it happened at all! You certainly don’t believe it WILL happen. A Christian has to consider the possibility that 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ["For this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness"] means that anyone who had opportunity to embrace the truth prior to the Rapture will not be allowed to change their minds on this matter once He returns. I know. I know. Tim LaHaye is gonna be really torqued that his rapture rescue vidoes [or whatever he calls them] will be well nigh useless after the Return, but this is a reasonable interpretation of Scripture, consistent with the rest of the Bible.
So [back in your order]:
1. You might not be able to change your mind about atheism DESPITE the compelling evidence.
2. Questions of bias and methodology would make the potential for this compelling evidence unlikely.
3. Your mind would be changed about atheism, but it wouldn’t have anything to do with choice and it wouldn’t do you a bit of good.
I should add that God, who does have a mind of His own, does not perform at a scientist’s bidding.
I believe your also already familiar with my arguments of how free will isn’t possible in a world where the existence of God is irrefuteable. That’s why faith [buttressed by evidences] is necessary [i.e.-- to allow for the possibility of actual free will to deny or accept God].
Still, this was a lovely attempt.
BTW, how open-minded are you to the idea of the existence of God, Ian?
be honest,
Sirius Knott
Sirius, I’d like to point out that you have managed to skirt around the issue very well, as those with religious tendencies like to. You have yet to either admit your close-mindedness or else give us some criteria that would lead to the abandonment of your faith.
As to the points you attempt to make:
1. I suppose, but how far do you plan on taking this argument? Because really, this applies already; you may see some sort of compelling evidence where Ian, like myself, does not. Ian has defined a certain threshold (while you have not) and his assumes a sufficient amount of evidence for him to change his mind implicitly.
2. Excuses and apologetics are all I hear from people who believe as you do. “There’s a bias” and “the methodology is flawed” are common statements but these disappear if the results agree with you. What about when a Jew performs the test and finds out that Muslim prayers result in significantly more positive prayer results than those of Christians and Jews? This argument can be made both ways because you will argue for bias or bad methodology for experiments that give results with which you disagree, and potentially, the same goes for us (because I’m sure some experiments show that prayer has an effect). How do you settle this “stand-off”? MORE EXPERIMENTS.
3. How much “good” isn’t the issue here. Unlike you, Ian has defined just what would change his mind, regardless of what he’ll get out of it. Also unlike you, he’s basing his beliefs on what he can see rather than on what will save his ass.
Like I said, you haven’t even bothered answering his question (instead spewing out numerous apologetics), and with all the Bible quotes you like to throw out there, you (not just you, but also others with similar beliefs) have failed to give anyone a sufficient reason to believe your holy book over someone else’s (or even to believe “your” interpretation of it over someone else’s – you talk of a “reasonable interpretation” of the Bible yet another man who calls himself a Christian will call your interpretation incorrect and unreasonable and try to tell me that he is right).
Aditya,
I have not addressed whether “my book” is better than someone else’s for the excellent reason that it wasn’t the subject of this thread. The Christian POV requires a dependency on its sourcebook for its authority on any issue; therefore, I incorporated it.
As for matters of interpretation… I don’t really deal in generalities. If you’d kindly tell me how someone else would interpret these specific passages differently, I’ll be happy to address them.
I haven’t any more time, but I’ll address the rest of your post later.
–Sirius Knott
Sirius,
I may have been a bit much on the offensive. I understand that your POV requires the assumption of the supremacy and ultimate authority of the Bible, and so I agree that that’s an issue that should be left for when it is specifically called. I would just like to point out that in my mind there is no reason for one to take one book – one religion – over another except for that of personal compatibility (which is unfortunately not very often the case), which is a very relative thing (as are all things pertaining to beliefs, really).
As for interpretation, unfortunately I don’t know of any specific interpretations but a number of my friends are Christians and I am fairly certain that they are of different Christian denominations. Just consider these various denominations (Wikipedia is great) – Catholicism, Baptism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. and consider that they all have differing beliefs and interpretations of the Bible and yet they all consider themselves Christians. So the issue here, in my mind, is to not only justify one’s own broad religion over others (something impossible, I believe) but also to justify one’s own particular denomation of that religion over others!
Aditya,
The thing to remember about Christianity is the concept of ideological [and by implication, theological] drift, reformation and reclamation. What do I mean by that? To put it briefly, Christians do all belive basically the same things. We call this orthodoxy. The basics are salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, an inherent belief in a personal God, the incarnation of Christ, the virgin birth, sinless life, death, burial, resurrection and future consummation of Christ, eternal judgment, the fall of man, and about a dozen or so other doctrines which are simply not negotiable.
So why are there denominations? Someone always manages to come up with an idea that they think should be included with orthodoxy. Take Unitarian Universalists, for example. They think the idea of an eternal hell is repugnant [they don't really put much stock in the other non-negotiables of orthodoxy either!], so they teach that everyone will be saved, which is really hard to justify if you’ve ever read the Bible. Too many passages simply state otherwise. But they like to think that nobody will go to hell, so they change it. Or Christianity begins to accomodate the culture, like these prosperity preachers. Jesus says you can’t worship God and money; you have to choose. They say you can can have the American Dream AND a home on heaven. [Bloody hypocrites]. This is the concept of ideological drift. Man is fallen. Man gets things wrong or rejects the truth for something else he’d rather hear [$], then hijacks the Christian label. At the very least, they claim it’s still Christian.
To complicate matters, there are areas of genuine disagreement: things that Christians can debate and still be orthodox. Like when Christ returns. But not if he will. Things like that. Or along comes the genuine huckster, Mr. I Just ran into an angel and he told me a new book even more better ‘n our Bible. The guy who supplants the authority of God’s Word for some new book or maybe just himself. We call these cults.
Somebody reacts to that. Maybe they over react. That’s what a good number of denoominations really are: pushes to swing the pendulum back to center. Denominations tend to accent some doctrine that someone else had maligned, twisted or ignored. This is the reformation portion.
God is not silent in these matters. He predicts the scammers, the apostates, the false teachers, the hypocrites and the well-meaning, but misguided crusaders of exactly-my-way-or-the-highway set. He did say seek and you will find. Somebody always finds their way back to orthodoxy. In pretty much every denomination.
I’ve over-simplified, but here’s the point: it always comes back to the non-negotiables, which by-and-large Christendom has always agreed upon. we may not agree on how to get wet right, but we agree a Christian disciple should be baptized. We [are supposed to] major in the majors and respectfully debate the minors. But we don’t always get along.
With that in mind, I argue from orthodoxy, being defined as what most Christians have historically believe when they think upon the Apostle’s Creed, the simplest and truest of formulations of the essentials of the faith. I’m not arguing on denominational lines. I simply don’t care enough about any one denomination to do so. I’m a generalist and, as a result, I’m generally right.
As a final aside on this topic: I hope you don’t suppose that a plurality or difference of opinion means that none of the options could actually be truth. That would be truly pessimistic. Do you admit truth as a possibility in the midst of plurality? Or is the atheist, in the end, no better than the theist?
;]
– Sirius Knott
You still didn’t provide an example of what would shake your belief Sirius.
Neither have you, Ian, which is exactly my point.
You’ve given one scenario that no atheist, no matter how open-minded, would swallow — at least no thinking atheist. The who’s prayer is better example fails for 4 reasons, 2 of which I’ve already named: bias and methodology. Then there’s the fact that it seems convenient that you would consider whether the efficacy of Christian prayer is greater than other religions when you actually think all religions and their prayers are bunk. Don’t you think your atheist bias would color your consideration of the data? One also has to note that there have been studies showing that those with religious faith seem to heal faster after surgery. Considering that data, why aren’t you convinced against a position with no religious faith [atheism]?
You’ve given another that occurs after you die. AFTER YOU DIE. Are you really expecting anyone to take that example seriously? Or aren’t you just admitting, in your open-minded way, that you’ll die before you’ll believe in this life, baby! Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. How would you answer me if I said I’d believe there was no God if I died and nothing else happened after that? You’ve offered a serious charge that no theist can be a freethinker; at least, offer us a viable reason to believe that we should take you seriously at all.
As to the last one, I’m always amused when someone says, Well, if God showed up in person, I’d believe. Atheists said that for centuries. Then Christ Jesus, God robed in flesh, showed up. And now you guys are giving us the ol’ Hey, how about the best 2 out of three, eh? Why should I believe, if you were allowed, that you’d believe in God if the rapture occurred? The Rapture occurs in the twinking of an eye, by the way, and there’s no indication given outside of the fertile mind of Tim LaHaye that our clothes will be neatly folded and left behind. There’s a good possibility that our spirits will simply leave our mortal coils. It would just look like bodies to the rest of you. Tell me you wouldn’t just say we died of unexplained, but natural causes.
But back to the question: Why should I believe you’d change your mind about atheism if God showed up again? You certainly weren’t impressed with the first time. Or perhaps you’ve just never bothered to examine the evidence given.
Here’s some food for thought, if you’re actually interested: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/resurrection-apologetics/
Now, I don’t think you’re open-minded for one second, Ian. I think you’re completedly close-minded about the possibility of God’s existence. You bury your head in the sand of good atheist literature, surround yourself with atheist friends and quote your favorite atheist fundamentalist apologists. Your pretty much all of the things you accuse me of being, except I’m actually honest about the fact that I’m dogmatic. Accusing me or any theist of being close-minded or dogmatic is purest hubris and a red herring besides. Dogmatism isn’t a sin. The real question is which dogma we ought to be dogmatic about: atheism or theism. [Sorry, deists, you weren't actually in this particular debate. maybe next time.] If truth exists, why should we accomodate error? If truth exists, why should we give quarter to ignorance and pretension?
I’ll certainly give you none, Ian. Every time an atheist tries to give pretense that he does not rely on faith, that he is unbiased, that he is more open-minded than theists, that he has more evidence for or has proven his case, as God gives me breath and wisdom, I will show the lie for what it is.
By the way, you redefined freethinker to someone who is simply open-minded, but historically the term freethinker is applied to persons who believe that beliefs, faith, creeds and especially revelation are not only invalid but harmful. Of course, they have to believe that creed, they have to have faith in a revelation they claim to have gleaned from reason, but since they cannot deduce it from reason they must take it by faith.
Keep trying, Ian. I’ll drop in some other time.
be honest,
Sirius Knott
P.S. For those of you who missed it, no, there’s really nothing that could persuade me to be an atheist. I honestly sat down and tried to think of something, but I honestly couldn’t do so. I’m fully convinced. I just think it’s hypocritical for someone who’s equally as convinced to make pretensions to the contrary.
Ian,
I with I could think of an answer, but it doesn’t seem to me like there could be any single, final deciding thing to cause me to change my mind. Maybe some gradual process of some sort, but how could a single event be so convincing to change a person’s perspective of God?
In fact, it seems to me that the same must be true of an atheist: it must be a gradual process rather than a single event that could result in a belief in God. Any single convincing event that I could think of (along the lines of “God I’ll believe if you strike me with lightning right now”) are not consistent with the nature of God, and so aren’t really valid situations.
I do believe that you’re open minded enough to be somewhat persuaded by a scientific study on prayer, but I can’t imagine that it would be convincing enough for you to choose to believe in God (after all, maybe praying just releases pheromones – no God involved). Just like if I heard a similar study I would definitely consider its results, but it wouldn’t be enough to convince me (after all, Jesus said that people who ask for signs and miracles won’t get them). It’s the gradual process of gathering such evidence that could eventually produce a change in a person’s mind, but it’s nearly impossible to predict just how much evidence would be required.