death or life
January 23rd, 2010 by 
Aaron
I’ve heard a few people tell me, “If I weren’t a Christian, I’d be a _____.” They fill in the blank with such things as naturalist, atheist, humanist, etc. Let’s get this straight, I’m not writing this to condemn anyone. What right do I have to do so? None. And for those who are not Christians, I don’t expect them to understand or agree with me. However, I’ve often found that such statements are made with an ever so slight sense of longing. Though I’m sure they’d deny it and it’s likely they are being honest, it seems as if they are really saying, “Sometimes I wish I weren’t a Christian so I could be a _____.” But when I’m in my right mind thinking about it, my own response is (or ought to be), “If I weren’t a Christian, I’d be dead.”
For me, there is no life outside of Christ. Without Christ, I’d quite possibly be physically deceased and would undoubtedly be spiritually and morally lifeless. And I don’t mean lifeless as in what happens after something has lived for a time, but as in having never once lived, a complete absence of even the faintest trace of life. Non-life.
Am I a better person for thinking this? Of course not. I am just as quick to give in to worldly thought and worldly living as the average Christ-follower, indeed, even more so. I’m outrageously susceptible to sin and am constantly underestimating its terrible power and influence in my own life. Nevertheless, when it comes to finding real appeal from adopting other worldviews, I simply cannot. I see no hope outside of Christ. I agree with Peter in John 6:68 when he replies to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” There is nowhere else to turn, nothing else that makes sense to me, no one else who offers an honest, practical, powerful, and reasonable solution to the problems of the human condition. I find no joy, no comfort, no meaning save that which comes from the death and resurrection of Christ. Without it I am forever lost; a creature most pitiable, doomed to roam in futility until its day of ultimate nonexistence. But in Christ I have life; eternal, glorious, victorious, abundant life! May it ever be so.
Posted in faith, life | 
18 Comments »
January 24th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
amen and amen!
January 25th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
As an atheist, I enjoy reading your blog to try to get insight into an alternative point of view.
You’re correct when you surmise that I don’t understand.
When you describe what you’re life would be like without Christ, you are describing me. So it’s a little strange to hear how “dead” you’d feel, while I feel nothing of the sort.
This shouldn’t be too hard to understand. Surely you don’t feel spiritually dead because you don’t believe in Shiva, or Buddha, or Zeus, or Ra, or any of the other thousands of gods, past and present.
I heard an interesting quote: We’re both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you.
I’ll keep trying to understand Faith. Thanks for your continued thoughts about it.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:04 am
@Nony Mouse
Thanks, it’s cool that you’re reading and even bothering to think about a system of belief that you don’t personally ascribe to.
Honestly, I’d say there are better blogs out there when it comes to theological arguments, apologetics, and discussions on doctrine, but perhaps that’s not what you’re looking for. If you want a good understanding of the Christian faith, I’d recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I think he takes a very reasonable and understandable approach to the subject and he used to be a very stout atheist. Not to mention, it’s a fairly short read.
As far as atheism goes, the quote I’m used to hearing is along the lines of, “there’s no such thing as atheists, only agnostics.” This stems from the idea that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God and therefore one can only claim that they do not know whether or not there is a God or that they don’t want to believe in God. It’s likely you’ve heard that argument before, so forgive me if you’re totally sick of it by now. I’m sure you have many reasons for what you believe.
As far as spiritual deadness, it’s not really a feeling as much as a state of being. Without Christ, I would be devoid of spiritual life because of my personal sin. The result of sin is death, both physical and spiritual. When we come into this world, we are spiritually lifeless. This is why Jesus claims we can be born again, referring to a spiritual second birth following a physical original birth.
I’m not claiming that an unbeliever would necessarily feel spiritual deadness or emptiness. In fact, you might feel very happy and even content with your life. Part of spiritual deadness is an unawareness of or lack of sensitivity towards spiritual things. It’s not an entirely simple concept (as is the case for many spiritual matters) and I don’t want to pretend that I have this complete grasp on it all, but I also don’t want you to think I’m tying to cop out on you. Let me know if you’d like me to explain further and I’ll make an effort at it.
For me, living without the hope of eternal life and especially the hope of transformation and personal change in this life would be unbearable. Though many people may love their lives, although they are Godless, I know I would be miserable. Nevertheless, I’m not a Christian because I can’t accept the idea of a life without reason or purpose but rather because I believe all reason and purpose precedes from God.
You must understand that I’m not a pantheist, therefore, I only believe in one God. That being the case, all other “deities” are either nonexistent or the manifestation of beings falsely pretending to be gods/God.
I don’t believe all religions are completely true, especially since many of them contradict each-other. Still, some belief systems may contain more truths than others. Atheism and theism (of which Christianity is a branch) are mutually exclusive, based solely on their definitions. I would say that every worldview, even atheism, requires a measure of faith. It is simply (or perhaps complexly) a matter of where that faith is placed. And I do not think that faith must be a “blind” thing lacking reason or logic.
Thanks for writing. I always appreciate comments of any sort, even (and especially) if they’re from someone who completely disagrees with every word I write. Feel free to ask more questions, I think it can be wise to learn about things that one does not agree with, if only to understand why they do not agree with them.
January 26th, 2010 at 8:51 am
I’ve actually perused Mere Christianity. I’ll give it more of a look when I get the chance.
“Impossible to disprove the existence of God”. Yes, this is a common notiong. But I don’t find the inability to disprove something a compelling reason to believe. See “Russell’s Teapot”, for example. Look up “argument of ignorance” on Wikipedia.
I think I understand what you’re getting at regarding spiritual deadness. You feel so alive and hopeful with Christ, that without that hope and belief, you’d feel dead by contrast. Perhaps I don’t realize how dead and lifeless I am, since I haven’t experienced the other side. In fact, I’m sure I don’t feel the kind of euphoria that I see in churches (crying, raising up hands and singing and praising, etc). Trust me, I’d love to feel the way you do, it sound wonderful. For whatever reason, I just can’t trick myself into believing. The term “leap of faith” comes to mind.
I understand you are a monotheist. You believe in one god. But there are many potential gods (true or not) and many religions with very real devout followers who believe they are right. Even Christiandom as a whole has its sects and interpretations. Does this give you pause at all? I’m not trying to convert you or anything, but curious how you can be so confident. It is this level of confidence (call it Faith, I suppose) that is lost on me.
Why does atheism require a measure of faith? I had someone else tell me that, too, and I didn’t understand it then, either.
Thanks for your comments. I have no interest in debating or trying to prove anything. Just curious why God created me to be such a skeptic.
January 26th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Ahh yes, I have heard of Russell’s Teapot (and am curious if it bears any relation to Pixar’s Teapot). I also understand the “argument of ignorance” and I’d agree that to believe in God solely because there is no concrete proof of His nonexistence would be foolish. By that argument, one could claim that just about anything was true, such as the presence of a flying monster made out of spaghetti.
While spiritual rebirth is often accompanied by feelings, it certainly isn’t a requirement. Undoubtedly, I’ve experienced some of those moments of emotional elation. And why not? If the gospel is really what it claims to be, if we have been saved from the consequences of our sin, isn’t that reason for rejoicing? However, the Christian life isn’t merely about going from one euphoric experience to the next and figuring out some way of surviving the parts in between. Most of the time, feelings have nothing to do with it. I consider myself (often to my shame) to be very unemotional when it comes to such things and yet very emotional about things that should not stir me. It’s more a state of being. Hope comes in knowing something is true whether or not it feels that way. God doesn’t expect us to be fakes, pretending to act or feel a certain way (though we often do anyways). He wants us to be sincere and earnest in how we approach Him and in the way we live our lives.
It’s true, there are many denominations of Christianity or even Protestantism, and that’s often a difficult thing to ponder. And they certainly have many disagreements on multiple levels. Yet, in many cases, this is acceptable. After all, the Bible is a big book with many difficult passages, and God is a great God with many mysteries. If we could fully understand Him, He’d hardly be a God at all, more like a really powerful version of us. Not to mention, every single (or married) person is not going to agree on every single thing. Some denominations exist because of different preferences in style of worship, teaching, etc. However, while we as the church can debate eschatology all day long and argue over what recent worship song is the best, there are certain key doctrines that must be agreed with in order for a person, group, or organization to be considered Christian and not a heretical sect or cult. This is the purpose of such writings as the Nicene Creed, where leaders with understanding came together to lay down, in simple terms, what one must believe in order to be considered a Christian. The church as a whole is described in the Bible as being a body with many members with different functions. Some parts of the body are, perhaps, more functional than others. Yet it is still one body.
As far as atheism and faith goes, suffice it to say there are certain things that you likely believe for which you do not have complete evidence, yet this does not dissuade you from believing them. For example, you must believe that humans came from somewhere and you may look to the theory of evolution or the big bang for the solution but neither of these are without their difficulties no do they completely address how all of existence came to be. In a Christian sense, faith is often a matter of having confidence in what you believe in spite of sentiments to the contrary.
Yes, a debate is certainly not what I’m going for and besides, I don’t think I’m all that good at it. I’m just trying to give you an idea of what it is I believe and why, which I think is what you asked for. It is rarely the case that a person is won over to Christ by argument alone and if persuasive speech is all that it takes to get someone to believe, there’s a good chance persuasive speech can also lead them away from God. True conversion comes only through the Holy Spirit. God saves us, we don’t save ourselves. To you, these may seem like ridiculous statements, and understandably so, because you believe there is no such thing as God or a Holy Spirit. But if God is a real person, and He can be known, then it is reasonable to believe that He can have a direct influence on people’s lives.
I’m sure there are good reasons you’re a skeptic, and to be so is not necessarily bad. In fact, I think it’s very dangerous to unquestioningly believe everything you are told. The Bible gives an invitation to test it in order to determine its truth. Jesus himself makes the offer to, “seek and you will find.” There are many skeptics who set out to disprove the Bible only to find themselves believing it upon investigation. All that to say, be careful not to let skepticism so rule your life that you doubt everything and believe nothing.
Thanks again for a great discussion, I enjoy talking about such things and wish I could (or would) do it more often.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
I suppose the simplest way to state my system of beliefs is to say that I don’t believe in magic. And I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
You’re correct that I do accept evolution. It’s my understanding that the basic tenets of evolution have been laboratory confirmed, corroborated in a variety of ways, used to make successful predictions in the wild, and generally withstood a century of extraordinarily rigorous scrutiny. As I said, I’m very suspicious of magic, and my understanding of basic evolution doesn’t smell like magic to me. It’s still a work in progress, to be sure, but very solidly grounded in material evidence. I don’t think it’s nearly as magical is it sounds on the surface.
I like your line of thinking, though. I’ve often wondered if there is anything I have actual Faith in? I still wonder.
When it comes down to it, I guess if there is a God, then I have to believe that he understands how and why I think and feel the way that I do. Even upon the threat of eternal damnation, I don’t think I could actually Believe. I’m not closed to the idea, but it would probably require, both literally and figuratively, a miracle.
Thanks again.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Well, I’m not sure I believe in magic per se. Then again, I’ve seen and heard of some pretty interesting things. Nevertheless, it’s probably more a matter of semantics and I think I know what you mean. Like Thomas, you demand the hard, physical proof. Something you can see and touch.
I find a lot of major issues with evolution. No doubt you realize that and to go much further would be to debate. I suggest only to look into both sides of the argument and don’t automatically dismiss an idea simply because you’ve already made up your mind.
If a miracle is all it takes, then it may be a miracle you will see. I know some people are saved through miracles, but I think this is not often the case. Even the greatest of miracles can be craftily explained away, or swiftly dismissed as irrelevant.
Jesus’ resurrection was a miracle for the world and yet there are many who believe it happened and yet still do not follow Him. I also believe there are many miracles that still happen today, but I think the greatest miracle is that of the transformed life. Is it really only the acceptance of a delusion? I don’t think so. But if that is so, then it is a strange delusion indeed that causes people to change drastically in personality so that they behave more civilly, overcome destructive temptations, put others before themselves at the risk of life, and even forgive the worst of enemies. By no means and I claiming that Christians are perfect. Far from it. However, when there is true conversion, it is extraordinary. And if those outside of the Christian faith do not see any real difference between themselves and the Christian, then it is a piss-poor job we’ve done of representing God and we should be ashamed at the thought doing both Him and you a horrible disservice.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Right. By “magic”, I mean “supernatural” or “miraculous”. I don’t necessarily demand hard, physical proof, but when something goes totally against the accepted norms of physics, biology, astronomy, etc, well, you’ve got some big time s’plainin’ to do. Immaculate conception, rising from the dead, frogs raining from the sky, the sun standing still in the heavens, walking on water. You get the idea. If these are to be taken as metaphors, then I’ve got no problem. If they are literal facts, that’s where my skepticism really kicks in.
I do try and be open minded. I expose myself to a lot of ideas that I don’t initially understand or agree with. Which is why I’m typing this, actually. And I even revisit things that I think I believe with a skeptical eye, just to be sure.
Can you name a few major issues with evolution? I’m curious if I’ve overlooked something. I’ll try not to get into a debate. (In fact, this may be my last response in this thread. I think we’ve gone about as far as we can go for now).
A final thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate the time and energy you’ve put into these responses.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I hope you don’t mind me interjecting.
@A Nony Mouse: You said you wonder if there is anything you have actual faith in.
If you think about it, you have faith in many things. You have faith that gravity won’t shut off tomorrow (or you wouldn’t be making plans). You have faith that the chair you want to sit in won’t collapse once you sit down. Indeed, you even have faith that the scientists performing experiments to test their theories know what they are doing and that the premise they are building on (the work of countless scientists before them) is solid.
Faith is a part of our makeup as humans, be it faith in something as simple as assuming a chair will support us to something as complex (and yet simple) as a religion.
January 28th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
I guess we have different definitions of “faith”.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:12 am
As far as the supernatural goes, I can understand how many of the Biblical events would be difficult to accept as being literal. I think it all boils down to whether or not there is a God and whether or not that God is all powerful. If so, then it really narrows down the scope of what can be considered impossible. And if God can do practically anything, we must ask what has God actually done and for what purpose?
I would agree that you are an open minded person and that is very commendable. You give atheists a good name when some of them probably wouldn’t so much as give me the time of day. Let’s be honest, we have poor spokespeople on both sides and hopefully we can both avoid following suit.
Ok, I’ll write concerning my thoughts on evolution, but only because you asked:
Mind you, I’m no scientist and am frankly rather uneducated in that particular field. I’m sure you realize that I’m not trying to take credit for all these ideas, they are the musings of more learned folks.
-One of the strongest arguments I’ve heard against evolution is that of irreducible complexity. Evolution claims that creatures have progressed to become more complex over time, yet there are many bodily organs that simply could not function in an any less complicated state, many of which rely on other organs that, again, become useless if altered. Darwin himself said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” The eye is just such an organ, to which Darwin claimed that the thought of trying to explain it gave him “a cold shudder.” And yet the makeup of cells inside that eye are incredibly more complex than the eye itself.
-Continuing with that line of argument is the issue of functionality. For example: some evolutionists think the bat came from a mouselike creature. This creature’s front limbs eventually became wings. And yet how would the in-between creature have a chance at survival? A half-winged mouse can neither fly nor scamper. The arms (or toes) would be too long to run on, but too short to fly with. And why would the thin, specialized wing skin form if it wouldn’t be useful for flying until many generations later?
-DNA is massive amount of highly detailed, encoded information that is being formed and decrypted over and over again in order to make the cells of a living, fully-functioning organism. It is difficult for me to understand how it was produced from a chemical reaction, perhaps with some pressure and heat. Has the complete creation of DNA been reproduced in a lab? Could it occur naturally?
-Though variation obviously exists within a species, a new species cannot be formed without mutation. Yet it seems that more often than not, mutations produce negative effects such as cancer and birth defects. Mutation with good results seems like taking letter blocks, arranging them in a large container so that they spell out a story and then violently shaking, or maybe even slightly shifting the container and expecting the story to have been improved. Have positive effects of mutation been proven repeatedly through experimentation and can they occur naturally? Admittedly, mutation is an awesome device when it comes to creating superhero stories.
-Evolution seems to rely heavily on the concept that, given enough time, chance will win out despite the billion to one odds against it. Chance seems almost like a very intelligent force which has consistently, methodically made better creatures who are more capable of survival over time, despite so many things working to the contrary. Not to mention, these creatures (and plants) appear to function perfectly with other surrounding creatures. To make up for it all, it seems like evolutionary theorists keep increasing their estimate of how long the whole process has taken. I’m reminded of the example of many monkeys placed in a room with typewriters to see if eventually they will accidentally, collectively write out Hamlet. Maybe I’m a pessimist about such things, but impossible odds are still impossible odds, no matter how frequently they are tried. It also seems strange that random chance has produced such order and “reason” to every facet of nature. Is that merely a human perception?
-I hear talk of discovering the missing link. Has it been discovered? Most of it seems very sketchy to me, and I’ve read about a lot of fakes. If we have found it, how many instances of it do we have? If evolution is the solitary process by which all life on Earth came to be, why aren’t there a plenitude of examples demonstrating one species gradually evolving into another?
-From the little I understand of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), everything is breaking down, becoming weaker, going from order to chaos. Many ongoing natural processes that take place are irreversible, resulting in a loss of energy that cannot be recaptured. Yet evolution seems to go against this idea. saying that instead the natural order of things going toward stronger, better, and more. Perhaps I am reading too much into what exactly constitutes evolution. However, it is the basis of a (or some) worldview(s), and supports some very consequential ideas.
-Humans, the one who came up with (or, for the Evolutionist, discovered) the theory of evolution, seem to be outside of it, whether or not it was the process that brought us to this point. It is no longer just the strongest or most capable who survives, mates, and reproduces. Nor is our life simply about just living to pass on our genes, but instead seeking things such as contentment, peace and joy. In many cases, these things are sought above or even in place of mere reproduction. Are we the antithesis of the very process that formed us? Can evolution adequately explain culture, beauty, morality, rationality, abstract thought, the conscience, etc. or does it simply dismiss them? Do we now look to be governed by social Darwinism? (and heaven forbid if that is the case)
-This may not be an issue with evolution per se, but it seems to be a strong argument for the opposing side. The possibility for life to even exist on Earth or indeed anywhere in the universe is contingent on many natural phenomena existing as they are, with the most minute variation of one aspect resulting in unlivable conditions. Such things include our Sun’s location and size along with Earth’s location and size, the force of gravity, our atmosphere, the amount and makeup of the oxygen and water on our planet, the properties of an atom, etc. I furthermore find it interesting that we dwell in what is likely the only region (and a comparatively small one at that) of our galaxy that allows us to observe not only most of our galaxy, but also much of the universe around us. And yet all these things are seen as simply a fortunate coincidence.
Apologies for the excessive text (even looking at it makes me a little ill) I just want to show you why I don’t see evolution as this thing built upon an unquestionable mountain of proof, hidden within an impenetrable fortress of the scientific process, as many have touted it to be. I don’t expect you to answer the questions or even write back, though, of course, you are more than welcome to do both.
January 29th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Thanks for the response! It’s about what I expected, actually. As you might imagine, I’ve spent a lot of time reading about evolution (both pro and against). The flaws you list are all pretty common.
I actually responded to this earlier with a rebuttal to each critique, but the intarwebs ate it. Probably a good thing, as it was far too debate-y.
Some followup questions:
Have you spent any time learning about evolution from pro-evolution sources?
In addition to the flaws of evolution, can you lay out the evidence for creation, and how that evidence was obtained?
If I promise to read “Mere Christianity”, will you promise to read Dawkins’ “Greatest Show On Earth”?
January 30th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Definition of faith (from dictionary.com):
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
I think that you are taking a part of the definition whereas I was using all of it. That’s one of the problems with English. So many words are non-specific and can refer to several different things based on context (e.g. “love”).
January 30th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
I don’t consider future events unfolding in the same way they have in the past as “faith”.
Water is wet. Ice is cold and fire is hot. I don’t consider this knowledge (or the knowledge of what will happen if I put my hand in a fire) based on “faith”.
Belief in the results of science is perhaps more accurate. The cool thing about science, though, is that in general terms, the scientific method is “open”. In order to be taken seriously, you must publish your methods and results in such a way that others can duplicate, validate, and verify your work. I certainly haven’t done all the validation and verification myself, so there is probably a certain degree of faith there.
But not nearly as much as believing in singular, miraculous events which have never been duplicated and indeed violate all known laws of nature. That, to me, requires a lot more faith to believe than, say, that AIDS is caused by a virus. I’ve never seen a virus with my own eyes, but I have faith the scientists aren’t all colluding to trick me.
No one has ever seen anyone walk on water. Everyone knows exactly what happens when you jump into a swimming pool. So to believe that someone once walked on water (for example)… THAT is faith.
As Aaron said: IF you believe in God, then all these things are, of course, possible. And, if you believe in God, it’s also possible that liquid water is solid, and that the sun can stop moving across the sky.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:04 am
Interesting discussion on faith. I think it is often a difficult thing to define, I still stand by the idea that faith does not necessarily mean believing in something for which you have no proof.
Anyhow, Nony Mouse, bummer about your post being lost. That really stinks. And I’m especially sorry if it was my website that ate it. I’ll admit, this setup really isn’t the best when it comes to a discourse such as the one we’re having. A system of forums would probably be more appropriate.
As far as the pro evolution stance goes, most of what I know I learned in school. That was High School mainly, they didn’t really address it in college, just assumed it was true and accepted by all, plus it was an art college so it wasn’t that big of a deal. I haven’t much looked into it otherwise.
I’d be willing to read “Greatest Show On Earth.” Though it does look fairly long and I’m a slow reader. There wouldn’t happen to be an audio version of it would there? Call me lazy
I’ll have to get back to you on the evidence for creationism when I’ve got some more time.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Some questions to ponder. Google things in quotes:
If a complex organ was found to be irreducibly complex, you’d certainly win a Nobel Prize and shake the very roots of evolution. Is the eye really irreducible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
“What good is half a wing?”
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/HalfaWing.HTM
“Have positive effects of mutation been proven repeatedly through experimentation and can they occur naturally?”
I’d suggest spending some time learning more about mutation.
“If evolution is the solitary process by which all life on Earth came to be, why aren’t there a plenitude of examples demonstrating one species gradually evolving into another?”
Sure. Here’s a short list. There are many others. One could even argue that EVERYTHING is a transitional species, since in a million years, it’s likely that our descendants won’t look much like us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
I’m out of time. Hope this gets you started.
I only perused “Greatest Show” briefly in the book store, but it really does look like a good book. It assumes no previous knowledge, and appears to lay out evidence in a very clear path. If you find yourself in a bookstore, flip through it. I’d really would love to hear your opinion of it, and exactly where it breaks down and why, if you ever do read it.
If you are admittedly uneducated on evolution, and don’t want (or don’t have time) to learn more about it, then I don’t think there’s much more to discuss.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Firstly, I’m not expecting to throw anything new at you. For all those points I raised against evolution, I think you have some good responses, ones that I’ll need to look into. I realize that it simply isn’t fair-play to assume that if creationists come up with one question evolutionists can’t answer, we’ve automatically won and all those years of research and focused study on your side just go right out the window. I also know there are many cases where if there is even a possibility of doubt, we conclude that God is obviously the answer. To us this makes sense, but I understand why it would be frustrating to you. I think there’s hard questions on both sides and I don’t claim to have all the answers, not by a long shot. After a very brief amount of research, I haven’t found much and some of what I did find was way too complicated for me to really understand or even attempt to explain. That aside, here are the basic arguments of creationism as I understand them:
-The Anthropic Principle, which states the physical structure of the universe is precisely what it must be in order to support life, to an extremely specific degree.
-Something can’t come from nothing. Every effect has a cause. Is it possible that our history is an infinite stream of causes? Perhaps. Such things as infinity are difficult for me to truly comprehend. Our solution is that there was one cause, which existed outside of time, namely God. I realize that evolution isn’t intended to deal with such matters, but creationism is.
-Though there is chaos, there seems to be an overarching sense of order, structure, and intent to the universe. Similar to the idea of the Anthropic Principle, much of it works together, like a well-built machine. To me it seems a miracle that everything holds together as it does and that atoms don’t just fly apart. I think it’s something we take for granted, but maybe science has a solid explanation for it.
In the end, I probably need to study more, a lot more. Science is hardly my field of expertise and I spend my time reading and listening to the more philosophical/theological/sociological kind of stuff. And even then, I’m not an expert, but do enjoy discussions on such topics. And I do intend to at least take a good look at “Greatest Show on Earth” if not read the thing in its entirety.
With all that said, evolution is a difficult framework for me to accept. If it is true, it has some very serious implications; firstly that we have no purpose and in the end all our efforts are for naught. It will all come to nothing, an almost poetic injustice. Also, since there is no lawgiver, there can be no intrinsic moral law. We are without a true “right” or “wrong” and can resolve only to invent some kind of relativistic system by which to conduct ourselves, a system that could conceivably vary entirely from one individual to the next, one by which we may do whatever “feels” right to us because there is no one to tell us otherwise. Such a world seems unlivable. Am I saying I’d rather accept a beautiful lie than a terrible truth? By no means; I want to know and believe the truth, even if it is an unpleasant one. And if turns out that evolution and atheism are correct, then it is a grim existence we find ourselves in, one in which I see much desperation and madness, but not a trace of hope.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:25 am
I think you’ve answered all my questions for now.
Thanks so much for all your time!