A.N. Wilson on why he has rejected atheism.

[bullethead]

Thank you for finding that quote. I do believe you're misinterpreting what I said, though.

Surely you've heard the saying, "It is what it is." Right?

In other words, since my beliefs about the possible existence of a Creator also hinge on the notion that they are no longer active in the universe (so the only time they interacted was before the BB, and on the other side of a singularity) and that any understanding of it can not be obtained that I just accept that things have happened the way they have, and that any intent that might have been behind it is as foreign to me as particle physics is to penguins.

So, since, within the bounds of current science, we can not understand, or experience, or relate to people on the other side, what occurs on the inside of the event horizon then it is something that I just take as it being what it is and move on. Now, if someone finds a way around that one day, in a way that I can observe myself, or once I cross the veil, then my position is open to changing.

My position isn't that there isn't a God. That would make me an atheist, and while I know some believers lump us skeptics together, there is a difference between atheist and agnostic. My position is that I can't know God, until He reveals himself to me in life in a way that makes sense to me, or when I'm standing before him at the Throne. My position on religion is that it is created by man, and is therefore fallible and a bad basis for trying to control the behaviors of others.

If people stopped calling religion a fact then I would shut up so fast that you'd wonder if I'd been killed. If they just put it out there that they believe that there is a God, and they believe the documents to be true for their lives, and they believe, but wouldn't force, other people should subscribe to their codices then we would have no problem.

If I came to you with a book, that you didn't see anyone write, and told you that a God told me to write it and that you would burn in doggone-nation for eternity if you didn't do everything this book said, you'd laugh me out of the room. Wouldn't you?

What makes this book any different? Nothing, but you won't admit that. You'll quote scripture, from the same book to me, to corroborate it, and when that fails anecdotal evidence from your life of times when your pleasure center was tickled after some important event that made you think the hand of God was upon you. I'm not saying it wasn't, just that you can't hold that up as factual to me, any more than I could to you, if you weren't inclined to believe it wholly in the first place.

When I say that religion is 0 for infinity against the universe it's purely in the same way that a metaphor is 0 against reality for describing the same event. I believe faith, and religion, to be metaphors, with the exception of some of the facts about the life of Christ that have been independently corroborated, where science deals in the literal.

Are they both trying to attain the same goal? Yes. A complete understanding of the reality around us. Science says here, check out this thing right here, play with it yourself, experiment with it, and only if it passes your logical judgment should you believe it. Climate science is a bad example of science since they believe in the absence of evidence. Religion says that there is naught but faith and a single book. Science also acknowledges its limitation in knowledge which is why things must be tried before they go from hypothesis, to theory, to law. Religion jumps from nothing to law. Faith doesn't, and that's an important distinction. My problem is not with faith, but with religion and purely because religion hold itself up as a science (theology- theo: dealing with a God; and -ology: the study of; anyone) and it's a very bad example of it. It's singularly sourced, and there's no ability for objective experimentation.

Faith is about belief. Religion is about ceremony, and dogma, and rules with laws and consequences based on little more than hearsay and books written by people who want you to believe in them.

I'm not saying you can't believe it, all I've ever asked is that you (infinitive you all throughout here) stop holding it up as fact, or that we change the definition of what a fact really is.

Now that is something I can relate to.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Do you believe that the Bible provides an accurate lineage from Noah to Jesus? In other words do you believe that the time of the Great Flood can be calculated through scripture to within maybe 500 years?

I think it's an accurate lineage, but I honestly don't know if it's entirely comprehensive in its scope, or if gaps exist where generations, possibly many, were left out.

 

[HawgJawl]

I think it's an accurate lineage, but I honestly don't know if it's entirely comprehensive in its scope, or if gaps exist where generations, possibly many, were left out.

If generations were left out, would that not make it an INACCURATE lineage?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Thank you for finding that quote. I do believe you're misinterpreting what I said, though.

Surely you've heard the saying, "It is what it is." Right?

In other words, since my beliefs about the possible existence of a Creator also hinge on the notion that they are no longer active in the universe (so the only time they interacted was before the BB, and on the other side of a singularity) and that any understanding of it can not be obtained that I just accept that things have happened the way they have, and that any intent that might have been behind it is as foreign to me as particle physics is to penguins.

So, since, within the bounds of current science, we can not understand, or experience, or relate to people on the other side, what occurs on the inside of the event horizon then it is something that I just take as it being what it is and move on. Now, if someone finds a way around that one day, in a way that I can observe myself, or once I cross the veil, then my position is open to changing.

My position isn't that there isn't a God. That would make me an atheist, and while I know some believers lump us skeptics together, there is a difference between atheist and agnostic. My position is that I can't know God, until He reveals himself to me in life in a way that makes sense to me, or when I'm standing before him at the Throne. My position on religion is that it is created by man, and is therefore fallible and a bad basis for trying to control the behaviors of others.

If people stopped calling religion a fact then I would shut up so fast that you'd wonder if I'd been killed. If they just put it out there that they believe that there is a God, and they believe the documents to be true for their lives, and they believe, but wouldn't force, other people should subscribe to their codices then we would have no problem.

If I came to you with a book, that you didn't see anyone write, and told you that a God told me to write it and that you would burn in doggone-nation for eternity if you didn't do everything this book said, you'd laugh me out of the room. Wouldn't you?

What makes this book any different? Nothing, but you won't admit that. You'll quote scripture, from the same book to me, to corroborate it, and when that fails anecdotal evidence from your life of times when your pleasure center was tickled after some important event that made you think the hand of God was upon you. I'm not saying it wasn't, just that you can't hold that up as factual to me, any more than I could to you, if you weren't inclined to believe it wholly in the first place.

When I say that religion is 0 for infinity against the universe it's purely in the same way that a metaphor is 0 against reality for describing the same event. I believe faith, and religion, to be metaphors, with the exception of some of the facts about the life of Christ that have been independently corroborated, where science deals in the literal.

Are they both trying to attain the same goal? Yes. A complete understanding of the reality around us. Science says here, check out this thing right here, play with it yourself, experiment with it, and only if it passes your logical judgment should you believe it. Climate science is a bad example of science since they believe in the absence of evidence. Religion says that there is naught but faith and a single book. Science also acknowledges its limitation in knowledge which is why things must be tried before they go from hypothesis, to theory, to law. Religion jumps from nothing to law. Faith doesn't, and that's an important distinction. My problem is not with faith, but with religion and purely because religion hold itself up as a science (theology- theo: dealing with a God; and -ology: the study of; anyone) and it's a very bad example of it. It's singularly sourced, and there's no ability for objective experimentation.

Faith is about belief. Religion is about ceremony, and dogma, and rules with laws and consequences based on little more than hearsay and books written by people who want you to believe in them.

I'm not saying you can't believe it, all I've ever asked is that you (infinitive you all throughout here) stop holding it up as fact, or that we change the definition of what a fact really is.

I honestly don't think, and I don't say this as an insult, you have a very informed view of religion or Christianity. Don't you think you owe it to yourself, that before you form such strong opinions about a subject, you should have an accurate understanding of it?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

If generations were left out, would that not make it an INACCURATE lineage?

No. If i was to state So and so was your great great grandfather, it wouldn't be inaccurate because I didn't include your great gf, gf, or fathers name would it?

 

[StriperrHunterr]

I honestly don't think, and I don't say this as an insult, you have a very informed view of religion or Christianity. Don't you think you owe it to yourself, that before you form such strong opinions about a subject, you should have an accurate understanding of it.

I have taken various college courses on it over the years, from both a singular religion perspective, as well as that of world religions, alive and defunct.

I have engaged many a religious leader, of all faiths, in discussion on the same topics that I discuss on here. It's more personable than this ends up turning to, but we do discuss them at length and they have yet to answer any of the questions that I pose to you all.

I don't take it as an insult that you question my knowledge and learning history of religion. I know that it's pretty extensive.

 

[HawgJawl]

If generations were left out, would that not make it an INACCURATE lineage?

No. If i was to state So and so was your great great grandfather, it wouldn't be inaccurate because I didn't include your great gf, gf, or fathers name would it?

Okay.
Do you believe that either one of these scriptures are true and accurate?

Matthew 1:1-17
or
Luke 3:23-38

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Hawg I honestly don't have the time and probably not the inclination either if this is gonna entail me to do a side by side detailed comparison of the two genealogies. You want to just cut to the chase and tell me what your point is. Not being rude, just honest.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I have taken various college courses on it over the years, from both a singular religion perspective, as well as that of world religions, alive and defunct.

I have engaged many a religious leader, of all faiths, in discussion on the same topics that I discuss on here. It's more personable than this ends up turning to, but we do discuss them at length and they have yet to answer any of the questions that I pose to you all.

I don't take it as an insult that you question my knowledge and learning history of religion. I know that it's pretty extensive.

It's statements like this that made me question it:

Faith is about belief. Religion is about ceremony, and dogma, and rules with laws and consequences based on little more than hearsay and books written by people who want you to believe in them.

This statement may be accurate to some degree, but represents a very naive view of each. Given your education, I think in hindsight you would have to agree.

 

[HawgJawl]

Hawg I honestly don't have the time and probably not the inclination either if this is gonna entail me to do a side by side detailed comparison of the two genealogies. You want to just cut to the chase and tell me what your point is. Not being rude, just honest.

I have them written out but they are too long to post. They are different genealogies but that's not my point. My point is that if you accept the genealogies in the Bible, then we can calculate the approximate date of the Great Flood.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

It's statements like this that made me question it:



This statement may be accurate to some degree, but represents a very naive view of each. Given your education, I think in hindsight you would have to agree.

You say naïve, I say objective and dispassionate. There is a hard line between faith and religion. They are not interchangeable. Religion is the institutionalization of a faith through rites, rituals, and ceremony. You can have faith without the religion, you can not have religion without the faith.

The faith is a personal construct. Religion is an institution amongst like minded people, based on nothing more than their beliefs.

Seeing as I can't prove a negative, that there is no foundational, and objective proof, to back the claims of religion, then surely you'll easily win this disagreement. Like I said earlier, you'll win when it comes to proving that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and easily so. It's documented in many places. Why is it that his miracles, and assertions about God, and many other things, are ONLY found in the Bible? If the records of Jesus himself made it through to now, despite some people's desire to see him forgotten through all history, in more sources than just the Bible, then why are the accounts of the miracles missing, if they actually happened?

Can you answer these questions without condescending to me? I don't need to condescend to you to punch holes completely through religion, since I'm "attacking" that and not you. Take a swipe at my arguments, and not me.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I have them written out but they are too long to post. They are different genealogies but that's not my point. My point is that if you accept the genealogies in the Bible, then we can calculate the approximate date of the Great Flood.

You know we can get bogged down and follow this down the rabbit hole as far as you want to go, but let me ask you this. Does whatever conclusion we come to regarding any of this really have any impact on the central message of the Bible. I only ask this because I try not to get bogged down in debating different scriptural interpretations. It's the main reason I stay out of the forums above. You can ge so lost, you lose sight of the Forrest because of the trees. Well that and I find it boring.

 

[bullethead]

You know we can get bogged down and follow this down the rabbit hole as far as you want to go, but let me ask you this. Does whatever conclusion we come to regarding any of this really have any impact on the central message of the Bible. I only ask this because I try not to get bogged down in debating different scriptural interpretations. It's the main reason I stay out of the forums above. You can ge so lost, you lose sight of the Forrest because of the trees. Well that and I find it boring.

Is the central message of the Bible universal or is it as open to interpretation as each verse?
The Bible was written by over forty authors over about 1,500 years in three languages and on three different continents.
What, in your opinion, is the central message?

 

[HawgJawl]

You know we can get bogged down and follow this down the rabbit hole as far as you want to go, but let me ask you this. Does whatever conclusion we come to regarding any of this really have any impact on the central message of the Bible. I only ask this because I try not to get bogged down in debating different scriptural interpretations. It's the main reason I stay out of the forums above. You can ge so lost, you lose sight of the Forrest because of the trees. Well that and I find it boring.

The impact is this:
If the Bible is not true and accurate, then how do we know if the central message of the Bible is true and accurate?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

You say naïve, I say objective and dispassionate. There is a hard line between faith and religion. They are not interchangeable. Religion is the institutionalization of a faith through rites, rituals, and ceremony. You can have faith without the religion, you can not have religion without the faith.

Unfortunately from an insiders perspective, I would argue "you can not have religion without the faith. " as false and a big reason that the Church is suffering today. Many are just empty shells: Nothing alive on the inside, but I get the point you are making.

The faith is a personal construct. Religion is an institution amongst like minded people, based on nothing more than their beliefs.

Seeing as I can't prove a negative, that there is no foundational, and objective proof, to back the claims of religion, then surely you'll easily win this disagreement. Like I said earlier, you'll win when it comes to proving that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and easily so. It's documented in many places. Why is it that his miracles, and assertions about God, and many other things, are ONLY found in the Bible? If the records of Jesus himself made it through to now, despite some people's desire to see him forgotten through all history, in more sources than just the Bible, then why are the accounts of the miracles missing, if they actually happened?

First I would answer if something is documented in only one place, that is not grounds for discounting it. From my understanding the only evidence we have of Plato's writings is what was recorded by his student Aristotle. We don't discount them because of that. We are grateful that we have a record at all, and it's absurd to discount it as fallacy in the absence of refutable contemporary sources stating otherwise. Same with the accounts of the miracles. There are no contemporary sources that contradict or refute the record. So much of antiquity has been lost through the years, who knows if there weren't other sources that have been lost through the ages. There very well could have been. We don't know. We can only go on what we do know and has been preserved.

Additionally the Talmud IS a contemporary source that seems to corroborate the accounts of the miracles. It records the crucifixion of Jesus and gives the reason as "witchcraft". So even this hostile source notes that he was responsible for supernatural events.

One more note if I may. You are absolutely correct when you say that there is no objective proof for proving (or disproving) religious claims, but let me ask you this, and take a couple of days to think about it: How much of you life and how many of your decisions each day are actually based on 'objective proof'. I think if you take the next couple of days and really look at every act you do, ask yourself "Can I validate this action solely on objective proof?" you will see very quickly that objective proof actually plays a very small in our daily decision making. In any case regarding interpersonal relationships it is almost non existent. Why is this important? Simply this: The relationship we are called to engage with God in is an interpersonal relationship and you can't very well apply objective proof to those to measure their validity. You can't do it with your wife, your kids, your parents, your co workers nor God. It just is not a valid tool for the job.

We have to use subjective proofs for interpersonal relationships. They aren't as airtight and are more prone to error, but it's what we use none the less.

Now I ask you this: Isn't it unfair and a bit hypocritical to measure one relationship by a totally different standard than you measure all the others. Think about it. What would your wife think if you told her you could never believe she loved you unless she could meet a repeatable objective standard yet every other relationship you have in your life is based on subjective values? I know what mine would say. She would say that's absurd, unreasonable, hypocritical, etc and she would be correct.

Can you answer these questions without condescending to me? I don't need to condescend you to punch holes completely through religion, since I'm "attacking" that and not you. Take a swipe at my arguments, and not me.

Just one note here. Religion with its (pick one) track record for abuse is an easy target. I don't think there's one whose teachings haven't been abused to harm others. I'm not defending religion. I'm not pro religion. I am pro Christ. He is a person. One who is calling to everyone to join in a relationship with him. Can you punch holes, find fault, or disparage him or what he taught? Honestly, can you, because that's truly what important when all the pomp and sophistry is laid aside.

 

[Terminal Idiot]

Indeed. Materialism can never explain something from nothing, intelligence from nothing, personhood from nothing, morality from nothing. It's a vacuous, bleak, and intellectually untenable belief.

And yet you believe in an all seeing, all knowing, super power guy that can poof stuff into being. Certainly he is a "something from nothin" figure as well (meaning- where did god come from? When did he start?) I know you will say you don't agree. That god has always been. But really, try to imagine. Is it so much harder to believe that a micro organism would come from your so called nothing? Or a god? I have to imagine that in all the randomness, it is easier to get mold from all the energy, atoms, molecules, etc. that started our universe than to believe that a god would be the first and only thing ever. Nothing before and nothing after, unless he creates it. Both concepts are difficult for a human brain to grasp. It just seems like the single cell organisms would be far easier to come about than a god, and usually the easiest, most simple explanation is going to be the right answer.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

The impact is this:
If the Bible is not true and accurate, then how do we know if the central message of the Bible is true and accurate?

I think it is true and accurate as to what it teaches. Are there errors? Yes. Do they distort or take away from the meta narrative. No, not in the least.

The message is clear. Those who wish to accept it, will. Those who don't, won't. It's that simple. Those who say I don't accept it because___________ may accept it if that reason is resolved, but there are others who will never accept it no matter how many reasons are resolved. They just won't.

Why is it enough for some but not others? I don't know the complete answer, but the individual's pride, comfort, and demeanor has a great deal to do with it. A humble, poor or compassionate person is much more apt to believe than a prideful, wealthy, or scornful person.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Is the central message of the Bible universal or is it as open to interpretation as each verse?
The Bible was written by over forty authors over about 1,500 years in three languages and on three different continents.
What, in your opinion, is the central message?

I think it's "God loves each and every one of us, and wants to save us from ourselves."

What do you think the central message is?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

And yet you believe in an all seeing, all knowing, super power guy that can poof stuff into being. Certainly he is a "something from nothin" figure as well (meaning- where did god come from? When did he start?) I know you will say you don't agree. That god has always been. But really, try to imagine. Is it so much harder to believe that a micro organism would come from your so called nothing? Or a god? I have to imagine that in all the randomness, it is easier to get mold from all the energy, atoms, molecules, etc. that started our universe than to believe that a god would be the first and only thing ever. Nothing before and nothing after, unless he creates it. Both concepts are difficult for a human brain to grasp. It just seems like the single cell organisms would be far easier to come about than a god, and usually the easiest, most simple explanation is going to be the right answer.

Something HAS to be eternal. Whatever first cause you chose, no matter how far back you go, something had to exist before hand that is eternal, exist outside of the influence of space- time and be non material in nature. There is simply no getting around that. A spaceless, timeless, non material something.

That leaves either an abstract being or an abstract concept/s.

Abstract concepts (numbers, mathematical formulas,) have no causative power.

That leaves an abstract, timeless, non material, spaceless, being with causative powers known locally as _ _ _.

 

[bullethead]

I think it's "God loves each and every one of us, and wants to save us from ourselves."

What do you think the central message is?

I cannot narrow it down to a central message.
Believe or Burn seems to be popular throughout the book though.

For the heck of it I typed "Central Message of the Bible" in a search engine. My goodness there are as many central messages as there are denominations and believers....