This is the third and final installment of a series of posts that recapitulate a recent theological debate. I enjoyed an interesting if at times vexing interaction with members of one of the Google+ communities. The original question was: “Atheists claim they have solid evidence disproving the existence of God. What is your opinion about that?”
Despite
being a tepid and unsharpened Calvinist, it was impossible for me to avoid
making a response—indeed, several responses.
But I immediately encountered stiff and formidable resistance to ideas I
had taken for granted as sensible and unassailable. In fact, my arguments were quite assailable. What follows are my responses to the discussion
topics, separated by paraphrased versions of my opponents’ remarks. (These are in italics.)
In
the last post we left off discussing the origins of religious and civil law,
and the effectiveness of prophetic teaching.
*****
•Given
human limitations why did God repeatedly send prophets? Why would he not have changed this patently
unsuccessful strategy? Wouldn’t anyone
else try a different key if the one they were using failed to unlock the
door—for thousands of years? Could it be
that God, heaven, hell, prophets, Holy Scriptures etcetera are all merely our own
creations, an expression of our weaknesses, desires and fears?
•The story of the Fall is not a
difficulty for more enlightened Christians, who take it to be a metaphor for
the inherent capacity for humans to do evil things. But it is very problematic for Calvinists
like you, who take it as indicative that God’s creatures are deserving of
eternal damnation. Doesn’t that suggest
that His handiwork is flawed? And what
gives God or anyone else the right to punish us for the sins of our very
distant ancestors?
•I believe that the origin of
evil lies in human evolution. Had we not developed a prefrontal cortex, human
society would be more like that of a beehive, with individuals living in
relative harmony. With the evolution of
this part of our brain, the human mind and human society became more complex,
requiring the development of strategies, (for example, language, and law) to
ensure social cohesion and reduce violence.
We have advanced cortical structures sitting on top of more primitive,
animalistic ones, and this introduces tension and chaos into human society.
Well, I make no apologies for ascribing to a less enlightened form of Christianity! Besides giving us the universe and everything in it, God gave us free will, without which there is no possibility of love, either from God or from us. Our choices, freely made, brought the evil of sin into the world; salvation is God's offer to fix what we have broken. And we have the "right" as you say to choose this offer or not.
One contributor’s interpretation of the origins of civil and religious law sounds like historical revisionism. If civil law came first, why was it necessary to invent any religious authority at all to enforce it? Why wouldn't military force be sufficient—as it has been more recently in officially atheist societies like the old Soviet Union or communist China? (Probably because civil law needs grounding in religious tradition to be considered legitimate.)
Regarding the complex paradoxical speculation as to why Holy Evolution hasn't delivered us into the happy life of a social insect after all these aeons—well, what you really are talking about is good old sin. It's sin that keeps us apart from each other and from God. Both original and unoriginal sin.
One respondent states: "But if the thinker expressed in the book consistently mixes rather obvious truths with vile nonsense, then yes, I will reject both the book and the thinker." However, the Bible is not one thinker but dozens of authors writing across different centuries and historical contexts. If you don't like Leviticus, (you probably would not), try Philemon in the New Testament. Or Ecclesiastes. It's hard to imagine anyone not getting something valuable from reading a book like the Bible—unless one willfully refused to do so. There's that free will thing again.
•A
problem for me is that Calvinist theology implies we are all deserving of
damnation from birth. Even newborn
infants are held responsible for rejecting God’s grace and salvation! Does this not make your God remarkably flawed
and cruel?
Not all of creation will be eternally damned—just the cute little
babies! Cute + helpless = diabolically
evil. Please. You may be exaggerating the newborn infants’ thing to
make an otherwise reasonable point. Obviously an infant is not capable of
an "evil rejection" of God's mercy, or of accepting it for that
matter. (This is why the efficacy of infant baptism is still debated in
Protestant churches—and also why it is so important in Roman Catholic
tradition.) But the child is not off the hook when he or she is older,
and does have a real choice. I am not sure if this is strange or unusual
theology—the concept of an original sin or flaw is not uniquely
Christian. By human standards what is seen as cruel or flawed can also be
seen as logical and just—if you hold to an omniscient and omnipotent creator—admittedly
a big if for many.
•As
a Christian, I have always found this belief to be rigid and
illogical. We put our foot in our mouths when we talk this way, and then have
to make all kinds of excuses and rationalizations when the issue of innocent
babies comes up. I believe that Christ’s
death, burial and resurrection saved all of humanity, without exception.
•After further study, I feel I
owe Calvin an apology. He has written
that "I do not doubt that the
infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a
secret operation of the Holy Spirit."
This seems inconsistent with his
teaching, but at least shows that he was compassionate.
•Regarding the
effectiveness of using religion instead of brute force to enforce civil laws:
religion is much more effective, especially in driving the emotions which
encourage submission to civil authorities.
In my view economics is the source of most of the religious, social and
political problems in the world. Jesus
suffered, died and was buried because he interfered with economic activity in
Jerusalem. No upstart deity has ever prevailed by fighting the State and
Established Religion simultaneously.
My
fellow Christian is reasonable in saying that she believes that Jesus' death,
burial and resurrection saved all of mankind to God without exception, and
there are numerous scriptural passages to support this claim—which is a clear
articulation of the liberal Protestant view, (i.e. Arminianism). But there
are also numerous passages to suggest that salvation is not for all, but only those predestined to receive it—a difficult
teaching. But the more philosophical issue is one of justice—if all are
saved, no exceptions, than does it matter if you are Hitler or Mother Theresa,
or even exposed to the Gospels at all?
I have to agree with the comment above that economics and politics are inextricably linked with religious teachings, depending on the historical context. I differ with the explanation of the fate of Jesus, but not by much. It seems he was executed by local authorities out of fear that the unrest he was causing might provoke violence and oppression from the Roman occupiers of Palestine.
But if religion is a far more effective way of motivating people than secular laws, why not dispense with secular law entirely and rely on sectarian codes? (Probably because there needs to be a balance between the two.) On what basis would any law be considered unjust, unless it was compared to some higher, (religious) standard? Economics certainly illuminates some of the issues here, but not all.
The one respondent’s earlier claim that science (or reason) should not absolutely determine the truth one holds but instead support one's intuitions rings true with me, if you consider that science, (as I do), is just another belief system. Reason serves faith, no matter what it is you believe in. Hopefully, faithfully, what you believe to be true—actually is.
I have to agree with the comment above that economics and politics are inextricably linked with religious teachings, depending on the historical context. I differ with the explanation of the fate of Jesus, but not by much. It seems he was executed by local authorities out of fear that the unrest he was causing might provoke violence and oppression from the Roman occupiers of Palestine.
But if religion is a far more effective way of motivating people than secular laws, why not dispense with secular law entirely and rely on sectarian codes? (Probably because there needs to be a balance between the two.) On what basis would any law be considered unjust, unless it was compared to some higher, (religious) standard? Economics certainly illuminates some of the issues here, but not all.
The one respondent’s earlier claim that science (or reason) should not absolutely determine the truth one holds but instead support one's intuitions rings true with me, if you consider that science, (as I do), is just another belief system. Reason serves faith, no matter what it is you believe in. Hopefully, faithfully, what you believe to be true—actually is.
*****
And so forth. We could have gone on and on, (and in fact we
did). The ancient question of whether
God exists and is active in human affairs has no final answer, nor should. The conversation here depicted is as old as
the question it attempted to answer, a question likely to be asked again and
again.
One last quote from Nietzsche: “My doctrine is: Live that thou mayest desire to live again—that
is thy duty—for in any case thou wilt live again!”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your interest in The R'lyeh Tribune! Comments and suggestions are always welcome.