30427 responses tohttp://www.jesusallaboutlife.com/2009/09/27/sundays-jesusaal-submitted-picture/Sundays+JesusAAL+submitted+picture2009-09-27+07%3A30%3A05Gee+Suss to “Sundays JesusAAL submitted picture”

1. 

   John Bartik September 28th, 2009 at 02:31

   Hi,
   I suppose you get alot of hate mail here. I think that’s really sad and I’d hate to add to that. I was trying to look up the original website for the first time, but landed here instead (which is the point, right?)

   As someone who is about to become a minister next year, I just want to say I don’t mind that this website exists. I’m actually impressed at the effort that you put in. The questions you ask are hard, important questions, and the church should be ready at some level to give you satisfactory responses.

   [On that note, if there are any Christians reading this comment of mine, please be consistent and show 'gentleness and respect' (1 Pet 3:16) to the author of this blog. He has genuine concerns and questions, he has the right to express them as forcefully and as publically as he likes.]

   I’d like to offer an answer to this
   “Maybe caption this one? (Warning graphic images of dead children from natural disaster) You know, something about how jesus creates tsunamis that kills children then says ‘it’s to teach you to believe in me, so you can go to heaven’. What a bastard. This isn’t a laughing matter, I’d like to see exactly how this jesus is answering this.”

   Well Gee Suss, thanks for the great question. I must admit, I didn’t click on the picture. I actually can’t hack that kind of thing anymore. I have a 3yo boy and 1yo twins (girl/boy). I’ve noticed that the more my 3yo gets to talk and the more his personality comes through, I just can’t handle seeing young men getting hurt. They always make me think of him. The idea of my little boy screaming in pain, or unconscious, or lifeless gets reflected anytime I look at things like that. So I decided not to click because I know that the first thing I’d think was: what if I had to pass through all those bodies in order to find my dead son/daughter.

   So let me have a stab at answering your question: the main thrust of it is ‘Jesus is a bastard’. I commend the clever irony as according to the Bible Jesus didn’t have a human father and his parents were married after Mary gave birth. The irony is that you are claiming that Jesus is despicable. Well, is he?

   Here’s an attempt to gather evidence on what Jesus would say to such a photo. The first thing to say is that Jesus loved children and set them as a priority (Mk 10:14). Jesus was someone who felt deep emotion: he wept when his friend Lazarus died (Jn 11:35); he also wept over Jerusalem when he saw its potential destruction. In other words, he wept over the notion that Jerusalem would be destroyed, I think he would weep even more when it did get destroyed. Surely Jesus would look upon the scene of dead children and weep. That would be my answer. I would caption it “Jesus wept”.

   So if Jesus had this basic disposition towards children dying then why did he allow it to happen? If he loves children so much, why doesn’t he preserve their lives?

   There are a few answers to this:
   1. No one lives forever, these children are included. It’s a seemingly obvious point, but the assumption behind it is that there is more tragedy when children die than when anyone else dies. Why is this? Isn’t it tragic when old people die too? It is! I have witnessed families coping with stillborn children and with grandparents dying and both are achingly tragic. What makes a child’s life more valuable than an old persons life? You could mount an argument that it is far less tragic for children to die because they are in the most delightful, carefree time of their lives – the children in the photo were presumably living in one of the most beautiful places on earth because that’s the kind of place that gets hit by tsunamis. You could add that old people suffer the humility of losing their independence, their continence, their minds…. before finally ending it in death. My grandfather used to tell me repeatedly ‘don’t grow old’ for this reason. To be honest, I wouldn’t mount this argument because I think, as I think Jesus thinks, that all death is tragic.

   2. I think you missed the point when you said that Jesus creates tsunamis ‘to teach you to believe in me so you can go to heaven’. The reason Jesus creates tsunamis is ‘to teach you to repent’ (Lk 13:4-5). I find this to be the most awkward Christian topic to talk about with people who don’t believe. Because basically it says you do things that God hates, and you don’t do things that God loves. The way you live your life is fundamentally NOT the way God wants you to live. I find it gets awkward because a) atheists think that I’m saying ‘you are a worse person than me’. I’m not, I never think that. I’m just saying you aren’t living how God wants you to live. I think you are probably a really nice person. b) So many atheists I’ve met are arrogant. They can’t admit they’ve made mistakes. They act as if every single decision they’ve made was perfect and didn’t hurt anyone… ever. In short, they think that they wouldn’t ever need to repent even in the case that there is a God.

   3. The idea that connects these last two points is that some things are worth doing even if they are costly. If Jesus loves children, and Jesus sends tsunamis to warn people to repent, and the tsunamis kill children. Maybe warning millions and millions of people to repent is more important to Jesus than preserving the lives of a few children. I think that when people ask Christians what did the tsunami mean, they are drawn to this very answer because of what Jesus says in Matt. 24:7,8 & 14:
   “There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains…. 14 .. and then the end will come.”
   Ie famines, earthquakes (and presumably tsunamis) are all there to warn people that God is coming back and that they need to repent.

   I’m sorry for writing such a long response. I thought your question was important and that I could offer a more robust answer than the ones you seem to be getting. I hope this answer helps you to think through things.

   I look forward to your response.

   John

2. Possibly disappointed by jesusallaboutlife.com « Skunk Egg Brick Walnut September 28th, 2009 at 13:28

   [...] Possibly disappointed by jesusallaboutlife.com I don’t know if anyone else tried visiting the “Jesus All About Life” campaign website and left off the ‘.au’ from the domain name. I did last night and was redirected to an atheist site dedicated to critiquing the campaign. Which is all good and well, they raised some important questions and I decided to post a response to this post. [...]

3. 

   Gee Suss September 28th, 2009 at 14:47

   “So let me have a stab at answering your question: the main thrust of it is ‘Jesus is a bastard’. I commend the clever irony as according to the Bible Jesus didn’t have a human father and his parents were married after Mary gave birth. The irony is that you are claiming that Jesus is despicable. Well, is he?”

   Actually no, that is not the main thrust of it, as I do not have the belief as you do that Jesus existed, but you did pick up on my ‘bastard’ jest I refer to the literary construct that is Jesus.

   The irony really is that your first thought on someone being a ‘bastard’ is that this is in any way ‘despicable’, personally, I don’t see the issue or how it relates to the person themselves, whereas religion has historically put this forward as some sort of walking ’sin’, but then again, everyone is a walking ’sin’ apparently.

   Firstly, obvious reasons we have tsunamis, are seismic activity, submarine landslides and possible cosmic impacts, all scientifically explained. There is no moral justification for it, and no reasoning as to that there is a god engineering this, let alone that the god is the one you define. That is just a leap to a conclusion based on no evidence or reasoning whatsover, using your scripture interpretations to fit. I could do the same with the book Lord of the Rings. It does not make it divine.

   your points :

   1/ “All death is tragic.” well no, death is an integral part of life, how is life tragic? Indeed this is an odd statement from someone that believes in an afterlife, isn’t death only the start of eternity with your god for you? How can this be possibly tragic for you? Indeed I know it can be tragic, such as in the instance presented, as our life is the only one we get. Really the point of the question, is why do these children not get ‘tested’ like other ’souls’? Why the mismatch of balance? What ‘lesson’ are these children learning? Their mothers? Why does the well to do pastor with multitudes of love offerings not be tested in any way close to that? On all examination, the concept of a god that is all loving, yet ‘evil’ exists, is a paradox.

   2/ “To teach you to repent Because basically it says you do things that God hates, and you don’t do things that God loves. The way you live your life is fundamentally NOT the way God wants you to live” Isn’t it? Who is this god you are talking about? which version of the many interpretations there are, are you taking? Is the bible to be taken literally, or should it be studied and have other humans define what interpretation is the correct one?

   But saying that, how does killing a whole slab of children in another country through a natural event such as a tsunami, at all teach me to repent? What about the poor kids that died, they are just tools to prove a point as Job was used to prove a point to Satan? They are just pawns? Or left without parents? where is the justice in that? how can, by definition, an all loving god by it’s very nature allow this suffering to even occur .. it’s a paradox. If this god knew everything before it ever existed, exactly what it would do and the end, the alpha and omega, there would be no choice, there would be only fate as you could not deviate from what that god predicted. There would also be no need for testing, as this god would know exactly the outcome, and could by it’s nature prevent the suffering from occuring, as it is omniscient and already knows. Logically, the concept of an omni-max god is a total paradox.

   3/ “Maybe warning millions and millions of people to repent is more important to Jesus than preserving the lives of a few children.” ie: they are just pawns. If this god was all powerful and all loving, could he not find a way to do this? Or is it impossible for him to do so? I still fail to see how a tsunami killing children in any way makes people go ‘I better repent for that lie I told yesterday!’ That is archaic, like throwing someone in the volcano to appease their gods .. not really any different. I would presume a supreme being, if one could possibly exist, which I find no evidence for, would not have to rely on doing so.

4. 

   John Bartik September 29th, 2009 at 00:21

   I don’t think being a bastard is despicable, I’m just quoting meaning 1 and meaning 2 from the dictionary on my Mac. I think bastards are the same as non-bastards deep down. Which is what you said too, everyone is on the same playing field for us Christians: none of us keep God’s requirements properly.

   Now as for the science of earthquakes, sure, I buy into the phenomenological explanations, landslides etc. But I don’t know why I can’t think that there is a God behind it all though: I find it perfectly reasonable. This is an important point for me, you are denying my presuppositions. I believe that there is a God controlling the universe who exists in a state of being that cannot be tested empirically. You don’t. It’s fine that you don’t of course, but you have to admit that you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist any more than I can prove that he does. Affirming that God doesn’t exist (which you just did) doesn’t make it true. The same goes for me I can tell you that God exists till I’m blue in the face, but that won’t make it true either….. the more I read your paragraph, the more I think that’s what you were saying too. Was that your point?

   so here we go:
   1/ “Really the point of the question, is why do these children not get ‘tested’ like other ’souls’? Why the mismatch of balance? What ‘lesson’ are these children learning? Their mothers?”
   It is the point of the question, you’ve nailed it Gee Suss. I’d be lying if I said these were easy questions. I think everyone alive has to struggle to come up with answers to the randomness and horror of death. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on why you think they died, if you have anything deeper than that it was just random chaos and chance. That’s not meant to be antagonistic, I do actually want to know for interest’s sake. Perhaps to sharpen it, I’d be keen to hear you answer the question ‘what meaning is their lives?’

   From my perspective, the first answer is that I don’t quite know why they didn’t get tested the same way as other people do. By tested I think you are referring to the Christian idea that God puts people through trials and temptations to refine their faith? I’m not God, so I can’t say for sure. But there is an entire field of enquiry into this process: its called sanctification. The basic question is how does God make his people ‘holy’? (Holy is actually just an everyday word meaning ’set apart’ or ’special’) The interesting thing is that some people are saved only to die the next instant (thief next to Jesus on the cross), others spend their entire lives becoming holy. So let me bring it back to your question – why the mismatch of balance? Well salvation is a once-off, one-necessary event when someone believes. That’s all you need to be saved. Sanctification has to keep happening for as long as you live until you die. The common principle is that both require you to make decisions based on faith in God.

   I don’t know why God did what he did to these kids, I haven’t the foggiest idea, I don’t know how it operates on the ground during times of extreme crisis like this. But I guess at the end of the day God was doing something that required each of them to turn to him in faith. But I don’t know what that looks like. The same goes for the pastor that you mention, even though he is surrounded by money (I have to laugh, I’m surrounded by pastors-to-be most days and almost none of them have or will have much money at all). Anyways this wealthy pastor is still tempted daily to trust in the money on his desk rather than God. He needs to keep being sanctified like everyone else.

   I think that the all-loving, existence of evil is a separate question to the one I just answered. But if you are interested in following it up, look up ‘theodicy’ in wikipedia. Just Google it, it’s the first one.

   2/ Yup, I’m talking about the God of the Bible, because that’s the only one I’m really qualified to speak about. To answer your question on how we discern who God is and what he’s like: I think the Bible should be studied carefully to discern the author’s intention. It should be read in the genre of literature that it is written in, stories as stories, poems as poems, etc. After reading the stories and poems as the author intended them to be read, you come to a clear picture of who God is and what he’s like. That’s the principles I work from.

   I presume your point here is that it’s arbitrary who decides how God is to be interpreted from the Bible. Yeah, that’s kinda true on one level. The history of Christendom is long and there are very many variations and differences of interpretation. But on the other hand, I think there does tend to be a method that emerges over time that becomes the best practice. It’s like science in some ways, the more people engage in it, the more the method keeps being improved and improved. I think my principles are the latest and best principles with which to work and they deliver good results in the clarity of the picture we have of God and his will for us.

   “But saying that, how does killing a whole slab of children in another country through a natural event such as a tsunami, at all teach me to repent?” I guess what I’m saying is that it is a sign, the only way we can know the full message of the sign is Jesus’ interpretation that I mentioned earlier. I do see that it must be frustrating to be continually referred back to the Bible, but I hope you appreciate its extreme significance in the lives of believers all around the world. If it is a message from God as we claim it is, surely we ought to ground our entire lives in its teaching….

   3/ The idea that the kids are just pawns is right but wrong at the same time. Sure I think you’ve heard me rightly in that the meaning of the event in which they died is a message urging us all to repent to God. However, I find the idea that they are JUST pawns to be offensive. They were and are human beings with real value.

   “If this god was all powerful and all loving, could he not find a way to do this? Or is it impossible for him to do so? I still fail to see how a tsunami killing children in any way makes people go ‘I better repent for that lie I told yesterday!’” The point is not whether God could find another way or not… I believe he could have chosen from an infinite number of ways but he saw fit to chose this way as the way that best represented what he wanted to do/say (more below). The second notion that yo raise is repentance – let’s just keep in mind that repentance is not just rejecting odd individual actions here there, it’s completely reordering your life to being entirely God-oriented.

   “That is archaic, like throwing someone in the volcano to appease their gods .. not really any different. I would presume a supreme being, if one could possibly exist, which I find no evidence for, would not have to rely on doing so.” It’s not a reliance, its a wilful deliberate choice.

   Here are some possible ideas for how killing children in another country could point us to repentance.
   1) It happened to them, it could happen to me. Presuming there’s a god, I ought to prepare for my death, in case it is unanticipated or accidental.
   2) They seemed innocent, and God cut them down, so I wonder if God would presume I looked innocent.

   It’s getting late, I hope these last few paragraphs made sense.

   John

5. 

   Gee Suss September 29th, 2009 at 12:54

   Hi again,

   The problem is that you are basically stating a logic fallacy by trying to explain an ‘equality’ in the burden of proof, and this is not the case. I am not claiming a truth, I am stating that there is no evidence for the truth that you put forward, and that it is illogical and unreasonable to believe in something without evidence. I could make any claim, it does not suddenly make my claim legitimate. Making a statement of equal ‘truth’ such as your position, opens you to having to concede that Zeus, Odin, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, Ba’al, Osiris, Astarte, the Great Mother, Cybele, Mithras, Marduk, manitou, mana, juju, and innumerable other gods, goddesses, demigods, djinn, and animistic forces have an equal position with your ‘truth’. There is a definite imbalance with a claim with no evidence, reason or logic .. and specifically when one comes down to a claim whereby when the ‘hard questions hit’, the claimant says ‘well I dunno, but it just is that way anyway’.

   It simply is not obvious that theism provides a better basis for explaining things than naturalism, and theists have the burden of showing that it does. The main problem we have, is that theists claim, and are getting, rights above an beyond those that do not hold their beliefs. Indeed, their beliefs are persecuting those not of their faith or convictions (I have posted recently of 2 cases of this). That is irrational based on the burden of proof that we use in most all our decision making as humans, except when it comes to religious faith where suddenly, magically, those with it have more rights than others.

   The victims of the tsunami died because the world, the universe, is indifferent and impartial to suffering, where DNA/RNA the building blocks of life are based on simple atomic structures seeking to replicate itself the only difference between life and that which is inanimate is the amount of information it stores. They died simply because there is no god or gods.

   The problem is if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to permit it. Faith is a construct that man has made to give purpose to that which is yet unexplained. Theodicy is a patchwork of excuses in that regard. Concepts of free will for instance which I have tackled elsewhere on the blog are lacking in clear logic for instance.

   With regard your explanations of interpretations of the bible, one could claim the same thing of Lord of The Rings given time.

   With regard the children JUST being pawns, I too find it offensive, and this was what you were basically inferring. That god allowed these children to suffer and die, so that the majority would repent.

   “It’s not a reliance, its a wilful deliberate choice. ” – How do you know? This is just interpretation.

   Whereas you do answer, your answers are not clear at all, they are a mish mash of possibilites, a ‘god of the gaps’.

   The basis of the campaign is the clear statement that Jesus has answers, and effectively there are none provided but the wishy washy ‘Only He knows why’. This is false advertising in reality. (Atheists themselves were forced to place ‘probably no god’ in their advertising in support of other non-believers, yet religious people can state god exists all they wish).

   With the ‘logic’ that is being provided by christianity, anything is possible, and when weighed against the overwhelming evidence for a universe that is neither good nor evil, cruel nor kind, I have to say it is more than lacking, it is unfounded.

6. 

   John Bartik September 29th, 2009 at 17:13

   Hi Gee Suss,

   First, I am enjoying this discussion. I genuinely appreciate your tenacity and passion.

   If I might, I’d like to zero the conversation down to your basic existential claim.

   “It is illogical and unreasonable to believe in something without evidence.”

   I think this is interesting. I’m curious as to what constitutes evidence? I’m sure you’ve been asked this before. But when I try to think philosophically about this. I just can’t come up with anything that doesn’t require an unprovable commitment.

   You probably have got answers to this, but I really struggle.

   So my existence for example. The first thing I do is look in the mirror – yep there’s someone there that I believe is me, but what if its an optical illusion? Could I be a brain in a vat and the entire universe is a figment of my imagination? I can’t access the universe except through (what I think is) my body. Descartes offers a suggestion: you can suggest a paradox whereby the denial of existence is impossible thus I exist. So Descartes offers us his seminal thesis “I think therefore I am”. But I still have to presume that there is such thing as ‘I’. This was Bertrand Russell’s critique of Descartes. I presume there is an ‘I’, I can’t see any way around this. Perhaps you can. For me, I guess I just trust that I exist. I believe it even though I don’t have any evidence to tie it down. It’s illogical, it’s not based on reason. I just believe I exist. Is there any other way to know? Help me out here. I honestly don’t know how to tie down my existence from a naturalist perspective.

   Let’s say you have some incontrovertable proof. You might. (If you do BTW, don’t write it here! Write the book and make a tonne of money! No one will ever know! Just write the book. Philosophers have been battling with this one for hundreds of years. People will pay through the nose for it! ) I sometimes make decisions based on my emotions and they are even harder to prove. Maybe emotions are chemicals in the brain? I don’t know about that. I’m not a scientist. Let’s just say they are. Is the only way for me to know that I’m angry to get out the microscope and the test tube and prove that my adrenaline levels have gone up? I feel angry, and feelings aren’t very good evidence. I just believe I’m angry. I can’t prove it, I can’t tie it down unless I get out the microscope. How would you prove I’m angry?

   If you’d like to go back to what I think about suffering, then we can do that too.

   Take care,

   John

7. 

   Gee Suss September 29th, 2009 at 18:31

   Not sure what you are getting at?

   Are we talking about observable, testable, falsifiable things?

   Why would I have to prove your angry? I am not claiming you are

   If you are getting around to putting forward Descartes ontological argument as some proof for a god, go ahead, there are a number of points within it that are not empirical, and I will discuss this if you really want too.

   However I must point out, simply making a claim that because something is unknown gives credence to your concepts of a god, is not really evidence.

   Evidence is also something you can put forward as a proof, that is falsifiable, testable, and observable amongst others. Reason paths and Logic arguments can also add to evidence, as evidence is not a distinct measure.

   However there is a balance with evidence, and especially in a claim that is extraordinary.

   I will quote Sagan here … Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

   But really, we can only go by reality as we understand it, and if we make claims that there is more than reality, we have to provide some evidence for that, otherwise it is a meaningless statement.

8. 

   Brian September 29th, 2009 at 20:43

   I get very tired of the relifreak argument that atheists \cannot prove the non-existence of a god therefore he must exist\ argument.
   This is, and always has been, a nonsensicle argument.
   If something exists there is undeniable evidence, an undeniable link between cause and effect.
   There must be evidence which can be repeated, and observed by other using one or more of our senses.
   Sight, touch, feel, smell and sound are the usual ones.

   If any party (the god-crowd) claims that god exists then they and only they are obliged to produce tangible evidence or be labelled as incompetent freaks. The requirement for proof is on them, and not on people who don’t belive them.

   It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, but that does not mean that it exists.

   Before lunar expeditions there were people who said, and believed, that the moon was made of green cheese. Children believed it until they, like most adults, grew up, began to think for themselves and realised that it was most unlikely. Evidence to the contrary was not available until telescopes and spectroscopes were used to investigate it. Visual evidence showed 99% equivalence with barren areas on the earth. Spectroscopic (et al) evidence confirmed that the results did not correspond to what we on earth know as cheese. So the green cheese story disappear in reality and only persisted in a few antique childrens story books.
   Then people went to the moon and brought bits back to scientifically examine them.
   Now no-one believes that the moon is made of green cheese, not even gullible children.

   The argument that we cannot believe our senses is, for me, proof that the ‘believers’ are bullshitters.

   So come on god-guys, show us some repeatable evidence. If not, just go talk amongst yourselves and don’t bother the rest of us.

9. 

   John Bartik September 29th, 2009 at 22:29

   Nice.

   (not angry by the way )

   I guess I’m moving towards this claim: evidence is overrated.

   To subvert the Sagan quote: Ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

   I guess if we are talking about proving extraordinary things like God. We might as well prove ordinary things too, like I exist and I feel emotions. They are both on the same level of difficulty… well in my mind at least.

   I’m not ignorant to the proofs of either. I just don’t stake my existence on them. Or the existence of the universe on them. Or God’s existence.

10. 

    John Bartik September 29th, 2009 at 22:44

    @ Brian.

    Not saying that we can’t believe our senses. We do. I live by my senses. You kind of have to. However, I am saying that our senses aren’t the incontrovertible source of all knowledge.

    We make decisions with other things.

    Look, if you haven’t noticed. I’m not mounting any proofs for God here. I think we can’t know for sure either way as far as proofs are concerned.

    I find myself philosophically an agnostic, because how can you proove it? But I choose to believe. I read the New Testament and I find Jesus to be authentic, brave, kind, deep, profound, inspiring, etc.

    I kinda just want to follow him around all day.

11. 

    Gee Suss September 29th, 2009 at 23:48

    No evidence is not overrated. It has direct value to our judgement. Evidence is an extremely important for definition of self identification and how things are perceived in reality as we see it. Not applying evidence to judgment, is not using reason. To make a judgement call, a whole life view with no evidence and just faith, is not logical.

    I don’t deny that the religious suspend evidence, logic and reason, that is why it is called faith.

    Agnostic is a terminology defining knowledge of god, not belief in god (hence you have agnostic atheists, and agnostic theists)

    You have created an idol out of a literary character, then make the claim that it is a god, with no other evidence other than a book from the bronze ages, logically an omni-max god is a paradox, and effectively, religous people stretch to try and show that a god is possible, which none can do, let alone that god is a personal god that cares about you, let alone the version of god that you profess.

    When one stops looking for empirical evidence to support facts, one is left with nothing but to try and attack that which does, as we are seeing with the attacks on science, particularly those areas that confront the religious failure to approach evidence, for example evolution and the age of the earth

    Another major problem, is this conceptual approach to evidence, not requiring it, is taught as truth at an early age to children, I see this as a form of child abuse, teaching children to suspend critical thinking before they have learnt to do so. As the saying (I think the jesuits used) “Give me the boy until 7, and I will give you the man.”

    The other issue is the persecution that religious society places upon those not of it’s faith. It claims rights above and beyond others, based on that faith.

    That is a great social evil, and a total hypocrisy.

12. 

    John Bartik September 30th, 2009 at 01:43

    I feel like you missed my point a little.

    I guess I’m just questioning the essence of reason and logic and evidence as being of number 1 importance. I’m definitely not chucking the baby out with the bathwater!

    Let me affirm a few things you seem to think I deny:
    1. Evidence is a great thing and very important. So is logic and reason. We couldn’t have an argument if I decided to reject them.
    2. Evolution makes sense to me. I don’t think it’s absolutely watertight. But I like it at a theory. It seems to have powerful explanatory power. I’d be happy for my kids to learn about it. I’d encourage them with it. But you shouldn’t be surprised if I also told them that it was still God directing it.
    3. Old earth is likewise the best explanation for the cosmos. God started work early.
    4. Children should learn critical thinking. But here I have to ask… do you have kids? I have to say they are a majorly a blank page. They start off with NOTHING. I emphasise this because its been a new experience for me. They really need you to spell out and explain everything. I think growing up in a theist household is normal and good. You need to give them a framework and any framework you give them will be biased in a particular direction.

    I believe evidence ends up being subjective too.

    You meet some people who look at the world and they see it as incontrovertible that there must be a God who made it. You meet others like yourself who just see the product of chance and happening. The first group believe they are rightly weighing the evidence and making decisions based on that. You know the “it’s too amazing to have been produced by chance” kind of argument. You might think they are doing it illogically, but they don’t. They think it makes tremendous sense.

    I know a woman who despite being committed to atheism, could not help but start thinking there was a God after her first child was born.

    Hey, to change the subject slightly… what about the argument that theism from an evolutionary point of view is better than atheism. I mean look at how many theists there are out there! Currently they are the fittest, because they are absolutely flourishing! You should even teach your children to be theist so that they have a better chance of surviving!

13. 

    Gee Suss September 30th, 2009 at 13:49

    I have a lot more respect for a theist that accepts that humans investigations of the world are accurate, rather than trying in some way to prove that the bible is literal, against the evidence while usually avoiding it (they end up arguing basically their god is effectively ‘tricking them’). However this does open the problem for the theist, that in claiming parts of the bible are not literal, the whole framework for their method of interpretation can break down.

    I think I will get to the discussion of the mental abuse of children by injecting faith as truth at an early stage, in a separate post to do the subject justice. Stay tooned on that one.

    “You meet some people who look at the world and they see it as incontrovertible that there must be a God who made it. You meet others like yourself who just see the product of chance and happening.”

    I don’t see anything as chance, this is a premise that theists continually use, as they do not understand the position of evolution, both biological and as a process. By far, concepts of evolution show that these processes are clearly NOT directed by chance.

    The problem is that the evidence is not weighed, it is accepted from bias, either by being taught by their parents, or their social position. Questions are not made, but the answers are considered already thought of by someone else. Simple stuff like how can a good God torture for eternity, those who’ve never heard of him? are never asked, or indeed investigated. This is a suspension of reason and critical thinking, it is passing off this to others.

    “I know a woman ..” “look how many theists there are out there” etc etc are logical fallacy arguments, appeal to popularity etc. Most of the atheists for instance I know, came from religious backgrounds. This is not an argument over the point, or a proof at all. Just because something is popular, or an ‘appeal to tradition’ does not mean the argument is true at all.

    If you look at the most peaceful countries in the world, (for example scandanavian states), they are for the most part decidedly secular, the countries that are currently the most violent, are decidedly religious.

14. 

    John Bartik September 30th, 2009 at 15:21

    I am happy to concede ignorance of the process of evolution from a heavily informed perspective. Although I must note that I earlier nodded to the explanatory power of evolution… ie I’m not rubbishing it. I am also happy to concede that I am being presumptive in saying you believe things happen by chance and happening. (Incidentally I’d be interested in hearing you a little more on this.)

    I’m happy to concede this but I would charge you on the same grounds to concede that Christians do struggle with ideas. Deeply. “Simple stuff like how can a good God torture for eternity, those who’ve never heard of him? are never asked, or indeed investigated.” This is bollucks. Christians ask this all the time. Christians struggle with this question all the time. There have been many attempts to investigate this. But I come back to the point again, settled ignorance does not have to be a weak position.

    I am mounting the argument that empirical or logical evidence does not need to be the primary arbiter of knowledge. I’m not saying it has no place. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try. I AM saying that it can take second place as a legitimate way of running your life and making decisions.

    In the existential discussion earlier, my point is that people need to make some irrational, illogical assumptions in order to ‘launch’ their system of thought/worldview.

    You are committed to rationalism. Why? Because it is the most rational way to live? Isn’t that circular? This isn’t a bad thing. I just think we have to be honest that we make assumptions, and assumptions by their nature are not tied to anything.

15. 

    Gee Suss September 30th, 2009 at 16:43

    If you have no emperical, or logical, evidence for a position, it is not rational.

    Rationality is weighing up the objective and logical evidence to come to a decision, therefore we disagree to using irrational knowledge to run and make your life decisions.

    What’s a system of worldview? This seems a very dogmatic approach to knowledge that religion implies. I do not need to make an assumption regarding a supernatural entity to have a ‘world view’. I think your statement here is just an assumption based on the fact you have faith.

    I am not ‘committed to rationalism’ .. not sure what you are saying in the last sentence, but you seem to be using a specific terminology the wrong way, attributing the way I make rational decisions to excluding sensory ones or giving it more credence all the time. Of course I include sensory facets in decision making along with logic, reason and evidence. There is a balance amongst them all depending on the situation. The problem is religion suspends this balance and makes a leap to deducing something outside of reality and claiming it knows it. This facet cannot by it’s nature be rational, unless of course you have a logic proof of a god showing your method of reason that is a solid one, (let alone one that this god is the god that you define above all others.)

16. 

    John Bartik September 30th, 2009 at 23:16

    I don’t think I use irrational knowledge to run my life and make decisions. I think I make assumptions. Don’t you make assumptions too? How do you account for your existence? I think everyone starts from the assumption that they exist.

    You are right. You don’t need to make an assumption regarding a supernatural entity to have a worldview. But you do need to make assumptions.

    I affirm the way you make decisions based on sensory experience, logic, reason and evidence. Good for you. But I deny your critique of religion that we deduce something outside reality. I don’t think God can be directly accessed via deduction, induction, exploration, or any other thing ending with -ion. We really only get to assume that he exists or not (or in your case to refuse to assume anything here).

    When I say you are committed to rationalism. I guess I’m just noticing that you keep appealing to things being rational or not. If you didn’t have rationality, you wouldn’t be the same person you are, right? All I’m saying is that this is important to you. From the discussion, really important. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    For interest: did you know that the Bible records that the first Christians were called atheists. This is because they denied the Roman Gods. I’m not trying to argue anything here, I just thought it was an interesting fact.

17. 

    Gee Suss October 1st, 2009 at 02:10

    Ah-ha, but that is where it comes down too John. The need to account for your existence. For me, I exist as I perceive it, and I rejoice in that, as I know it will not last forever.

    Indeed this is a very strong need that the concepts of religion put forward what appears at first to be solid answers. It is comforting to not have to think about the logic arguments, death, suffering etc .. god did it. Faith is a great support mechanism, I do not deny it. I do not deny that many christians do good things, and are good people.

    But that does not make the postulation for a supreme being/mind outside of time and space, that does not need a cause, and has a personal relationship with us, based on collected writings from literally the bronze age fact.

    When one actually uses the concepts of rationality (and I am pointing at critical thinking and not dogmatic thinking here), one must be objective by definition. If you do not approach the decision making process without bias, weighing the factors, the information or lack of it against each other, testing the logic and building a hypothesis, but working from a position and finding ways of justifying it, you are not following a rational path.

    This is not to say that is stupid (however I do think it is when confronted with those that are effectively close minded, you yourself would have met such people), it is not saying that using emotion or leaps of faith in areas is not valid … but it has to be recognised as just that. A leap, not based on reason, not based on logic, but totally of faith. It is not rational.

    In the case of christianity, as with any other religion, it is faith that these works of man are indeed divinely inspired.

    For instance, every reason for the ‘proof’ of the bible, for the proof of a god, is extremely similar across all religions.

    Why do you deny other religions gods? You will find the same reasons you deny them, is why I deny yours.

    I can say I love you John as I do with all humanity, I don’t need a book or others to tell me that. I look at the fact all life on earth comes from a common ancestor, I feel an affinity for all life on our blue dot in space, and in the wondrous expanse of all that exists I explore that knowledge knowing I have but one life, how could I POSSIBLY expect more?

    When I look at where religion leads us, the dogmatic stance and position, it saddens me.

    When you claim that there is effectively a god, you are claiming something supernatural, you are postulating for instance ‘an uncaused cause’. The concept itself is a logical paradox in that it leads to an infinite regression of who created the creator.

    I do not refuse to accept a god exists, I am an atheist. I do not have a belief in a god. There is a very clear definition here I think you are missing, and something most of faith have trouble accepting.

    Yes, you are right with regards being rational, as I find it a great framework to make decisions on things. When suspended, we stop critically thinking.

    I am open to changing my position, are you?

    For interest: Did you know the term atheist came before theist? (from atheos) your right, in those times, anyone who didn’t believe in a god of the majority was labelled as an atheist, the term meaning ‘godless’.

    PPS: If really interested in my personal ‘account for existence’, I recommend a book by Richard Dawkins, I can hear you groan just then, but he really puts some deeper concepts of evolution in laymans terms without missing the scientific accuracy .. it’s called ‘The Greatest Show on Earth, The evidence for evolution’. I love scientific study, and have read many many books on the subject since school many many years ago now, but that particular one covers so much information in a digestable format I have not come across one that compares. In it, he does not attempt to ‘crush religion etc’ indeed he states many religious people state that the cause of it was god. You can hear however a man speaking out about his love for what we have, the sheer enormity of all life and what that entails, at least it would give you some aspect as to why many are frustrated with the dogmatic approaches of religion that hinder exploration and enquiry, by just placing god in it’s place. If anything it will open your eyes to the shear enormity of what we are dealing with while you can still place your supreme being at it’s head. totally wondrous

18. 

    John Bartik October 2nd, 2009 at 02:28

    Kudos. This is great writing! You have a tremendous trajectory in the first 5 paragraphs. I will say that I find the ‘religion is a crutch’ theme a bit condescending, but I’m buying your logic, and I take it in faith that it’s not intended that way. Your conclusion that faith is not rational is right…. it’s almost a truism when its put like that. I feel heard.

    \Why do you deny other religions gods? You will find the same reasons you deny them, is why I deny yours.\

    I doubt it. This question troubled me greatly for many years. To cut a long story (I hope you take seriously that it is a long story) short I eventually found an odd sort of resolution in the fact that Jesus demanded exclusivity…. [pause] (this makes me look bad).

    This sort of thing does make me look bad. I’m guessing when you talk to Christians they will tend to come up with crutch-sounding responses to hard questions. It’s true, we do. But contrary to what you think, many think hard about it. Admittedly not many are gifted enough to properly articulate the difficulties they encounter when trying to articulate how they should go about their grief and suffering. Or how troubling they find natural disasters. Or even how hard they find the Bible’s (seemingly) contradictory messages. For example when I try to boil down my long journey into a few compressed sentences, I will play into the stereotype you have of Christians, uncritical, irrational, leap of faith into the dark. Because at the end of the day, after years of hard, hard thought arriving at little noumenal phrases like ‘Jesus demands my exclusive worship’ seem like I’m chucking away my brain. Why do I deny other gods? Jesus asked me to. Great. Not only does it look like I disvalue any worth in other religions, it looks like I haven’t even investigated them, because captain Jesus told me not to. End of story.

    Maybe I am chucking away my brain at the end of the day because I settle for an answer that requires faith. But, to press the analogy further – leaping into the dark can be very carefully planned, and can require determination and courage. The courage occurs in the relegating rationality to second place, in order to stake one’s life on the claims of a bronze-age text. This is not easy, esp when some of us are built to value reason, as you are.

    To acknowledge your points: this applies to logical paradoxes and infinite regressions.

    There are a few moments where I feel a little misheard. Not that I care, but I’ll clarify anyways:

    1. \I do not refuse to accept a god exists, I am an atheist. I do not have a belief in a god. There is a very clear definition here I think you are missing, and something most of faith have trouble accepting.\

    I originally didn’t say ‘accept’, I said ‘assume’. I think whether God exists is an assumption that you either affirm or deny or refuse to play the game. You refuse to play the game – I do not have a belief is simply denying the positive, not affirming the negative \God does not exist\. To your credit I believe this is the strongest atheist position.

    I don’t feel you have adequately dealt with my charge that you also make assumptions at the most foundational level. You have to, everyone has to. I’m not being religious here, I’m being philosophical.

    2. \For interest: Did you know the term atheist came before theist? (from atheos)\

    This is a minor point, because you agreed with my sentiment. It’s not just that one term preceded the other (in which case, logically ‘theist’ would be primary, the negating suffix a- must be an addition to an original); my point was even more ironic – *Christians* were called atheists. Christians were the original atheists…. how’s that? Stick that somewhere on this website.

    \I am open to changing my position, are you?\

    This is very generous, Gee Suss. Of course I am! But this would not be the context under which fundamental changes would happen… I find these discussions stimulating; it makes me want to look more intently into things I should have a deep answer for, but don’t. I desire to be an increasingly critical thinker esp with regards to my faith, and a discussion like this inspires me.

    ‘No it would take something alot more sinister to change my fundamental positions’

    PS. thanks for the Dawkins tip. Dawkins has a reputation for being a brilliant evolutionary biologist even in my circles. I would read him on this.

19. 

    Gee Suss October 2nd, 2009 at 13:25

    I can understand your position as it is hard to collate a world view into 300 odd words.

    With regard my statement over “Why do you deny other religions gods? You will find the same reasons you deny them, is why I deny yours”

    Let me ask a question .. Do you think that you would believe in Allah if brought up in Islamic society? Or would we be having this same discussion over that particular version of god, and the validity of it’s scriptures?

    Myself, I have had these same discussions with people of various faiths and beliefs within wider faith ‘communities’, and all have the same convictions over their version of god. What is it that defines your god as the one true god, over all these others?

    I argue there is familiarity, social influence and exposure that defines the majority lean toward a belief, not an inherent ‘truth’. If you would disagree, then why are there large religious communities of differing faiths? These people are already open to the concept of god, wouldn’t the greater truth just ‘win’?

    I argue no, as there is no ‘greater truth’ except for the individuals perception and circumstance.

    I also do not think you are ‘chucking away your brain’. There’s definitely a process there, but one major problem is this process or lack of it is projected onto young minds before they are able to critically think. They are automatically converted to ‘christian children’ or ‘muslim children’ and taught faith = fact. Critical thinking is not taught to these children. It’s effectively a virus of faith, extremely appealing and supported by popularity.

    All children are born atheists.

    1/ Of course I make assumptions, but I do so using reason, logic and evidence. An assumption is a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. How we come to an assumption is very important to the value of it. Is their any good reason to believe what religion says is true? Not that I can find. I am not making an assumption your claims are not true, I cannot find any reason that they are. I am not assuming they are untrue, just because you postulate a concept. If I was to take the position that what you said was possibly true, I would be making an assumption as to that.

    I can claim anything and it does not mean it is therefore a valid assumption. Not having a belief in god is not an assumption anymore than not stamp collecting is a hobby, or being bald is a hair colour. To state I am denying the positive is meaningless in the form that if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it’s existence.

    Do you only ‘believe’ the god Thor does not exist? Or do you ‘not believe’ in Thor? Are you ’simply denying the positive’, not affirming the ‘negative’?

    Quite simply, this comes down to the burden of proof, and it lies with those that are making the claim.

    2/ I was just stating this out of interest, as you mentioned in your own post. But since you are discussing it, I will point out that indeed you are actually incorrect. The word comes from atheos in greek, and was actively used in the 5th century BCE. Christians were not the ‘original atheists’, they were called that as anyone for hundreds of years that went before them were for not believing in the god of the majority. Diagoras was actively called an atheist, Socrates was as well, Euhemerus, Epicurus (even tho he was really a deist) .. The ‘Cārvāka School’ starting in India around 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India. The earliest use of the term ‘theist’ was in 1662 by Edward Martin in “Five Letters”… atheists have been around before religion

20. 

    John Bartik October 3rd, 2009 at 02:43

    This is nicely argued. Kudos for that. In fact I feel a little under the pump. You have me on the run!! I guess what I’m saying is that you are making very good points that I find hard to answer, and I’ve always found hard to answer. I mentioned above that I’ve spent alot of time thinking about this topic. Well you are pretty much articulating my hesitations and rubbing them in my face! As is fitting in a discussion like this.

    I might be taking a foolhardy approach here. But I think I’ll just blunder in… I think that my particular truth will ‘win’. I have my reasons, logic and evidence for this, but you have rejected my premises so what good is it to state them? I’ll state it anyways: Jesus Christ is the Son of God who will come back and demonstrate the truth of his claim for universal kingship once and for all, some time in the future. He was raised from the dead, as the victor over death, and the Bible tells me this proves he is king over everything.

    “I argue no, as there is no ‘greater truth’ except for the individuals perception and circumstance.”

    I think this is a strong argument. I do not refute it, except to offer (cheekily) that you have never encountered how truly amazing Jesus Christ is. Then you would be forced to admit his awesomeness!

    With the religious children thing. I simply don’t see how it can work practically. I’ve thought about it seriously and I just don’t think children critically think at a young age. They can parrot critical thinking, but they are just trying to please you anyway. For kids faith = fact no matter what.

    So what do you want me to do? Here are a few phrases for my 3yo, that he wouldn’t understand.
    “God, should he exist, loves you.”
    “In my opinion, God made you. But this could be wrong. You might just be a bald ape.” (Actually he’d probably like this one.)
    “It’s up to you to decide, even though you often decide not to eat when you are hungry, and sometimes you decide to jump of tables into walls, and decide to take dumps on the floor. I’ll uphold your right to make critical decisions and allow you to make the decision of whether God exists.”

    He’s going to choose to believe God exists because he wants to be like me. I’m his daddy. I give him critical thinking skills in all areas of life and he will undoubtedly apply them to the Christian faith we live out. And kids get very curious, they are always asking tough questions.

    What would you want me to do? Given my personal faith, if he asks me “Who made me, daddy?”, what should I say? I believe God made him, I think he can understand it. It will be new information that he has to integrate and I think it ultimately helps develop his critical thinking because its an idea to master, and when alternative ideas arise he can master that also and then decide. What’s wrong with that?

    1/ The awesomeness of Jesus Christ is a good reason to believe what religion sees as true.

    Regarding belief and not-belief. I thought that was what I said. That’s what I meant by saying you refuse to play the game. You do not affirm the positive? I thought the concept might fit into one of those handy logic formulas… either way I think we are on the same page here.

    2/ You nailed me! I’ve even spent 4 years learning Greek! I didn’t think that one through. Point happily conceded. Atheists were before Christians! lol

21. 

    Gee Suss October 5th, 2009 at 11:03

    “With the religious children thing. I simply don’t see how it can work practically. I’ve thought about it seriously and I just don’t think children critically think at a young age. They can parrot critical thinking, but they are just trying to please you anyway. For kids faith = fact no matter what.”

    Exactly. This is a very telling remark. Religion gives them faith instead of teaching them critical thinking. Parents define their children by their faith, as ‘christian kids, ‘muslim kids’, ‘catholic kids’, etc, dividing them socially and in education. Religion is divisive. Your personal god is not really personal, when you pass the concepts to children as truth.

    Bald ape? We have a common ancestor with all life on the planet, our common ancestor with the apes is just closer up the tree than many other species.

    Indeed you could say we have a common ancestor with the mushroom, worms, maggots, grass, butterflies .. on and on .. all life.

    How totally freaking awesome is that?!

    Kinda leaves the ‘magical man did it’ lying in the dust, considering there is overwhelming observable evidence that proves it.

    “What would you want me to do? Given my personal faith, if he asks me “Who made me, daddy?”, what should I say? ”

    Your mother and I made you son. It goes like this …

    Really, other than that, I think this discussion has just fallen back on yourself stating ‘Just have faith’, hence not getting anywhere. But I am realistic, faith is blind.

    Your faith, your religion, not only closes the door to critical thinking, but does a good job of stopping others not of your faith being able to have their kids taught it in schools. It opens the doors to radical interpretations of your scripture that causes bigotry, and kills people in the name of your books god.

22. 

    John Bartik October 5th, 2009 at 17:32

    No worries Gee Suss, I’ve enjoyed this chat.

    “Really, other than that, I think this discussion has just fallen back on yourself stating ‘Just have faith’, hence not getting anywhere. But I am realistic, faith is blind.”

    I think so too. Your last post was a turning point. I was thinking about what you wrote last time. I think when you press my ultimately faith-based assumptions with questions that are based in rationality, you will tend to reveal the faith-based foundations that don’t strictly conform to rationality. I’ll try to say that better, when you use reason to interrogate faith, you will eventually find that faith is not reasonable at its core premises. It’s faith, that’s what it is.

    You missed my point with the children response thing. I’m not asking for what you would say. I’m not trying to dodge biological reproduction either (I think it should come later though). I’m asking for what you think I should say given that I’m a Christian, and I believe that ultimately God created my child. Put yourself in my shoes. I know that I can’t be certain that God exists, but I trust this anyways. Presuming you are not going to change my faith, and presuming also that you care enough about my children to desire them to have critical thinking (ie you care about all children religious or not). How should I raise my kids to think more critically when they are so young they don’t have the capacities to be strictly rational. I have only a single critical situation in mind: the 3 year old. I would happily encourage my children to think and explore all manner of ideas as they get older, but when they are very young they are simply sponges. They can’t understand reasonable doubt, or levels of uncertainty. They are black and white, there is no grey. They understand bald indicatives like “God loves you”. They don’t understand questions of existential uncertainty, phrases like ‘probably exist’. I either tell them that God exists or I don’t. How can I be true to myself or my convictions if I don’t?

    This is an invitation. Look with me at my practice. You have an intelligent perspective and real concerns, what can I do better? Or has my assumption that you are tolerant of personal beliefs been mistaken? Are you unwilling to think like a theist for even a moment and offer a better direction if one is available? If critical thinking in children is the goal, what more can I do with my 3 year old?

    I think that not raising children to be critical thinkers cuts both ways. I have a friend whose father was a devout atheist. My friend recalls times when his father censored any public religious discussion to prevent his son being polluted. If God was discussed on the radio, he would switch channels, with the comment “turn that rubbish off”. I presume my friend was at an age where he could think critically. In fact, my friend was later very disappointed that his father did not help him critically engage with theistic assumptions. Rubbish? You are not saying this of course – I think you are intelligent and friendly. But surely you can imagine some of your atheist friends not showing the same grace (Brian above might be a suitable example). Isn’t that just as misanthropic when half the world (or more) is theist?

    I am content to conclude this discussion, and I think that since it is your blog you ought to make the last comment. I will read it, I promise, but I won’t post any kind of lengthy response.

    As I said at the beginning, I think this is a good blog. No matter who says what to you in these forums I support your right to be here and I welcome your existence wholeheartedly as critical commentators keeping the church honest. To quote you, “respect, even if we end up disagreeing”. Respect.

23. 

    Dave The Happy Singer October 5th, 2009 at 17:52

    Gentlemen,

    I’ll be brief so as not to interrupt a thoroughly entertaining discussion. I think this is the kind of thought and dialogue that the world really needs.

    Gee Suss: despite the confronting tone in some of your posts, I admire your calm patience, steady reasoning and welcoming style in this discussion.

    John: I wish more theists were as honest as you and took the time you have to think these things through and aim for sensible, considered answers to what I know are tough questions for you. I second the recommendation of Dawkins’s science writing. He’s not only an eminent scientist but a remarkably clear teacher. You’ll love it.

    This type of discussion is why it’s important we be free to openly criticise and share our ideas. Thanks to you both!

24. 

    Gee Suss October 6th, 2009 at 10:38

    I’m fine with letting you express yourself there John. I think I have pretty much replied.

    I am not ridiculing people, I am ridiculing a concept, an idea .. religion. I think it worthy of not only ridicule, but contempt for the bigotry and hatred that not only historically it has caused, but that it continues to promote. I think the right to do so is something worth fighting for, especially considering that religion holds as truth bigotry against those that do not believe.

    I am realistic that the problems you face with your children and critical thinking is part of the over-arching problem of religion, and I do not see how you can avoid it, so long as you hold to these concepts as absolute truth.

    I won’t as you do bring out singular situations to ‘prove’ a point of view, I’d rather look at the over arching effects of a concept. There’s a REASON atheists don’t fly planes into buildings, or shoot doctors.

    I’ll leave you with this ..

    If god wanted people to believe in him, then why did he invent logic?

    

25. 

    John Bartik October 6th, 2009 at 14:08

    Thanks for the chat, Gee Suss.

26. 

    Gee Suss October 12th, 2009 at 11:41

    I passed this on to John, but think it also worthy to post here for ease of reference, it probably better describes the position I am putting forward regarding what you teach children a lot better than I have :

    Raise Critical Thinkers, Not Atheists

    The ultimate gift that all non-theistic parents can and should give to their children is the skill of critical thinking. By critical thinking I’m referring to a combination of empiricism (just the facts), rationalism (the application of logic and reason), and skepticism (a humble balance between credulity and cynicism). Non-theistic parents should instill in their children a willingness to critically examine their own beliefs, so that they will know what they believe and why.

    You will be doing your children a disservice by dogmatically coercing them into rejecting theism. Foster in your children a desire for getting at the truth and teach them to be comfortable with uncertainty. Show your children that science and the scientific method are the best tools we have to understand the universe and everything in it. Let your children know that you are not opposed to the existence of things beyond our universe, but that at this point, there are no convincing arguments or evidence to warrant such a belief. Help your children see the importance of viewing all of the data they’re presented with as objectively as possible and to not let their emotions guide the decision making process.

    I’m convinced that this is the best we can do for our children.

    Certainly let them know your stance on the god(s) issue. But encourage and work with them to investigate the ‘arguments’ and ‘evidence’ for and against belief in the existence of the supernatural.

    If you encourage your children to accept your word as authority on issues of belief, then you will be setting them up to one day replace your authority with someone else’s whose ideas you may not agree with. And that is certainly something I’m sure we’d all like to avoid. But most of all, love them no matter what they choose to believe.

    “If a man begins with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” – Sir Francis Bacon

    Encourage your children to start with doubts — try not to force your certainty on them; it may one day backfire on you.

27. 

    caio November 4th, 2009 at 10:43

    Wow, thank you for a frank response, its refreshing to have somebody who will actually talk about the issue at hand, but also to take some time to understand what lies behind the superficial wording. You should join the AFA, it would make for a refreshing change from the usual trolls and perhaps show others how it is done, something about leading by example right?