It was about four years ago when began to realize that a lot of philosophical/ spiritual/ ideological stands I had so far been considering the gospel were in fact not the most internally consistent and obvious at all. Over these years I have been searching hard for the most internally consistent and reasonable ideologies. It hurts to say that I do not find biblical theism to be the most rational or consistent one. Yet, I hold on to my faith, struggling to marry the unbelief my mind sows about my faith and the need for a divine saviour I feel.
Of the many fundamental questions that I have been pondering about, the Atheism, theism debate is on the top. I have by no means completed my enquiry and claim to be no expert but five years or so of reading books, blogs, journals and other resources I have my conclusions and here they are.
Schizo’s Fact Sheet:
- Opposing ideologies have and will always create/lead to physical or philosophical conflict
- There are and always have been outstanding scientists who believed in god and in creation and in the young earth
- There are and always will be more scientists who do not believe in god and creation.
- There will be always mudslinging from both the camps
- Religion, does not have all the answers, in fact it does not have some very fundamental ones
- Science does not have all the answers, fundamental or not
- Peaceful coexistence of diametrically opposing ideologies is a mirage. It has never been done before and it doesn’t look like its going to happen, except in science fiction.
- Human being are not kind hearted gracious and charitable by default.
- Religious people are not always charitable gracious and kind hearted
- Atheists are not amoral unfriendly and ruthless by default.
- Its is pointless and counterproductive to point out the “real” theists are all nice people
- It is also pointless to accuse all theists to be narrow minded unscientific Neanderthals(note, it is pointless not necessarily incorrect)
- It is very very difficult for people to allow change in the fundamental presuppositions they hold regarding life
- Religious fundamentalism has done way more physical/ material/ psychological/ sociological harm than atheism ever has
- Faith/religion has done more harm to the progress of science than science to religion
- All faiths are not preaching the same God, to latch on to similarities in their philosophies to prove their unity is like claiming that hydrogen and plutonium are essentially the same bec both are made up of electrons
- Religion Provides an emotional crutch to explain life’s sorrow, science does not.
- It is not practical for all people to find purpose in life by pursuing science, religion is a lot easier way.
- Religious beliefs are not completely rationally deducible or consistent . Science is ( I think)
- Honest acceptance of uncertainities and holes in the fabric of one’s belief system (or the lack of it) is what I would aim for, but is a hell lot more difficult than just wanting.
Read through these articles to look at what some of the thinkers of today have to say. [warning: Atheistc material, may offend som reader's]
It will be really nice if reader’s can point to similar dialuges by christian philosophers.
NYTimes (Via The scientific Indian)
Ciao
Schizo
9 responses so far ↓
1 patty // Dec 2, 2006 at 4:14 pm
All I can say (at the moment, anyway), is yes. Life is messy. So is my faith. And as I tell friends, “I might stop believing when I reach a stop light, but somehow by the time it turns green again I’m back to believing.” So I deal.
But, and this is coming from a Christian, I can tell you a LOT of the Christians I deal with are actually the most difficult people. Go figure.
2 Stuart // Dec 3, 2006 at 9:55 am
The way I see it is that the actions by the religious “right wing” to try and spread misinformation in schools has triggered an outbreak of non-believers to step forward and defend their right to not have their children taught the earth is 6000 years old and force belief in a sky God down their throats.
It amuses me that religious preachers can bash evolution and science from their pulpits but get very unsettled when atheists like Dawkin’s do the same but in reverse.
Seems to be a bit of being able to give but not take.
3 DLE // Dec 3, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Phil,
Tozer said, and I summarize, that because God created us, ultimately all our issues are theological ones. Therefore, all of our answers are found in God.
So I don’t share your belief that Christianity fails to answer some questions. The God of the Bible is the Source of all truth. A relationship with the Source of all truth will lead us into all truth. It all depends how serious we are about our relationship with God. True seekers find answers to every question.
We may not like all the answers, though, because they might very well be painful realities about ourselves and our need to repent and be conformed to the image of Christ. That failure to conform explains all atheism and all failure in Christianity.
If this paints Christianity as a religion of utopian ideals that cannot be reached, then the problem is ours and not God’s. He made it right. We just need to want Him more than anything.
4 Jim Martin // Dec 5, 2006 at 2:50 am
Phil,
You have done a lot of thinking here. In fact, your list probably consists of thoughts that you’ve had for quite some time.
I respect what you have done here. You seriously wrestle with science/religion and some of the issues and problems that both bring to the table. (I can also see the usefulness of creating a “fact sheet” for my own reflections.)
A few comments and then a question.
It seems to me that religion has often focused far too much time and energy on the “how” of creation. I recognize there is a place for that discussion. I am really focusing my remarks on the proportion that has been given to it. It seems to me that within Scripture there is much more emphasis on the “Who” and the “Why” of creation. In fact, I believe that a doctrine of creation that is dwarfed has significant implications for how human beings see themselves, etc.
When you use the word, “religion,” Phil, I assume you are referring to religious systems and the kind of thing religion is or has become. (Since we are not talking face to face, I am trying to read between the lines.
For myself, I would probably distinguish between religion and God himself. While I do believe that all truth comes from God (as creator) I would agree with you that it does not come from religion.
I am curious as to what you mean by religion being an “emotional crutch” to explain life’s sorrow. (I’m not arguing with you. I am just not sure what you are saying).
I appreciate the work you put into these thoughts, Phil. These were not formulated overnight and took some thinking.
Jim Martin
5 dim (and then) sum // Dec 5, 2006 at 7:58 am
have something to say about point-14:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0212.htm
6 Schizo Phrenic // Dec 5, 2006 at 8:43 am
Hi every one thank you for your comments.
@ Patty: I am so like that, the only reason my light has not turned red is because i cant do without my faith, it is so deeply interwoven with my very existence, it is hard to separate.
@ Stuart: The tussle between groups that hold themselves guardians of the absolute truth is not new, it has been happening from the beginning. Also most religions are authoritarian, and to allow serious questioning of their core principles is simply in tenable.
7 Schizo Phrenic // Dec 5, 2006 at 8:45 am
Hi every one thank you for your comments.
@ Dim(jj): The article contains some good points but it is mostly what i have said in point, the Israel Palestine debate is a very deeply religious one, and to deny it is to close one’s eye to reality, as for the politics involved, is not the politics of todays world like almost always married to religion? I do agree that sometimes evidence seems supportive only if you believe in the cause. So, to the atheist any religious person involving in an act that is anti social is a religious act of terrorism but for a religious person it is an ungodly act of terrorism.
8 Schizo Phrenic // Dec 5, 2006 at 9:43 am
@ DLE: Your quote is beautiful, I cannot agree more that all our significant questions are theological ones, and I guess the answers must be found with god, but I so far have not found all of them, perhaps I am not a true seeker (that I am a bad Christian, my church and other religious people have been telling me already).
“the in ability to conform..” lovely. you have indeed hit the nail on the head.
“True seekers find answers to every question.” Have you?
@ Jim: Thank you for the comments. Yes, I am indeed talking of religion as i see it today, rife with politics hypocrisy and fanaticism, sparsely studded with rare displays of love generosity and maturity.
How do I distinguish between God and “what religion has become”
As for the emotional crutch: Humans find it difficult to find answers to emotional quandaries within themselves. The problems of sorrow, pain and our inherent tendency to do evil have no scientific explanation that soothe the wounds, but religion does provide a balm, a crutch to help us through.
9 Dr. Johnson C. Philip // Dec 6, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I feel many of the points have merits. I felt I ought to use these points to write a substantial article that would enlighten everyone interested in truth
Dr. Johnson C. Philip
Leave a Comment