How can Christians better understand what a non-theist believes?

[steve_bakr]

It's probably the case that you don't believe in all but one of the Gods which atheists don't believe in.

Our preconceptions of what God is come from the claims Christians have made. We don't come up with our own preconceptions.

With respect to being able to hold a belief that something exists, the tooth fairy and God are in the same category. One can either hold a belief that the tooth fairy exists or one can fail to hold a belief that the tooth fairy exists. The same goes for God.

I don't think that belief and unbelief are as simple as your portrayal suggests when they refer to God. In fact, these words might not be as helpful or meaningful as they used to be.

The following is better explained in "The Theology of Karl Rahner," by Steven Buller. Consider that we are transcendental beings in that we seek what is beyond ourselves as the sum of our components. What we reach for in all that we do is the infinite mystery. This holy mystery offers himself to us in grace, but our experience of the infinite is always mediated by the categorical existents in our finite world.

Consider that we must make a decision about this holy mystery with a "yes" or "no." We consider whether to make an affirmative response to "God." But this response is not necessariy a single prayer or moment.

Our affirmative response to God is made with the totality of our lives. This involves a general attitude and our acceptance of the necessary circumstances of our lives. It involves each decision we make and our relations with others. In other words, we answer God's offer of his grace to us with our lives. This is why it is not inconceivable that an individual atheist may be more a follower of the teachings of Christ than an individual Christian.

So, the subject of our relationship to the infinite mystery we call God is much deeper than mere intellectual assent.

 

[Munising]

Your first sentence is part of a claim often used to show that Christians aren't that far removed from atheists. In truth, you only need to believe in one God to be a theist, and if you believed in many gods you couldn't be a Christian.

The tooth fairy and God fall into vastly different categories; we all know WHO the tooth fairy is, as we know who Santa is. Not so with God, insofar that he isn't one of us pretending to be something else. I'm always surprised that people can't see the difference.

Can you demonstrate that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus don't exist?

 

[Munising]

I don't think that belief and unbelief are as simple as your portrayal suggests when they refer to God. In fact, these words might not be as helpful or meaningful as they used to be.

The following is better explained in "The Theology of Karl Rahner," by Steven Buller. Consider that we are transcendental beings in that we seek what is beyond ourselves as the sum of our components. What we reach for in all that we do is the infinite mystery. This holy mystery offers himself to us in grace, but our experience of the infinite is always mediated by the categorical existents in our finite world.

Consider that we must make a decision about this holy mystery with a "yes" or "no." We consider whether to make an affirmative response to "God." But this response is not necessariy a single prayer or moment.

Our affirmative response to God is made with the totality of our lives. This involves a general attitude and our acceptance of the necessary circumstances of our lives. It involves each decision we make and our relations with others. In other words, we answer God's offer of his grace to us with our lives. This is why it is not inconceivable that an individual atheist may be more a follower of the teachings of Christ than an individual Christian.

So, the subject of our relationship to the infinite mystery we call God is much deeper than mere intellectual assent.

It actually is as simple as I portray it. One either holds a belief that a god exists or they don't hold a belief that a god exists. There are no third options.

 

[steve_bakr]

It actually is as simple as I portray it. One either holds a belief that a god exists or they don't hold a belief that a god exists. There are no third options.

I explained that the options are deeper and involve the totality of one's life. You answer the offer of grace from the holy mystery whether or not you are aware of it. I'm sorry that you are not able to understand at this time. You seem to be minimizing the most important question in life. I wish you would read the kindle book that I recommended, but perhaps you don't have the necessary experience and background to understand it now.

I think you ought to be able to talk more deeply and intelligently about the subject rather than trivialize it with comparisons like the tooth fairy or whatever. Perhaps you should read philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Martin Heidegger. But I think you should read Karl Rahner. Atheists should have a firm grasp on the subject too. If you're going to come into a Christian forum to discredit God, bring something to the table, like a strong philosophical argument.

 

[cerette]

If A plus B is equal to C, could it also be true that C minus B is NOT equal to A?

Once you answer that question, you'll understand the validity of my logic.

I'm not wondering about the logical method/s you may be using, I am just wondering how you can be sure that LOGIC is the ultimate measure to tell whether or not God exists?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Can you demonstrate that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus don't exist?

You started this thread with the seemingly genuine premise that you wanted Christians to understand atheists. Well meaning people on here fell into the trap of engaging with you. You have now shown your true colours, not by helping us to understand you, but by trying to argue every point we present.

If you are a typical atheist then I can happily tell you that your original post has been answered. I now fully understand you.

As for the question you've asked above, I'll explain something you obviously don't know: Both Santa and the Tooth Fairy are your parents. I hope that's not too shocking. I was both to my kids too. By way of contrast, very few parents claim to have created the universe. We don't have to disprove Santa and the Tooth Fairy because we already know they're fictional constructs. You believe God is too, which is why you're an atheist.

Now if you can prove to me that God is a fictional construct we can have a discussion. Until then, I'm out. Just remember that after 11 years as a fully functional, debating, militant atheist, I probably know your next move. But I was as wrong then as you are now.

 

[steve_bakr]

God cannot be encompassed by logic but is he who encompasses all logic. You are mistaking a philosophical problem for a quasi-logical exercise. In principle, I really don't mind discussing this issue with atheists, but your comment is clearly stereotypical of most atheists who come in here and is thus disappointing. Do you have any deeper and more substantial arguments? Have you read Karl Rahner's arguments in "Spirit in the World" or "Hearers of the Word," for example?

 

[cerette]

I'm not saying anything just yet, just wondering how he can be sure that logic is the ultimate measure to tell if God exists.

 

[Munising]

I explained that the options are deeper and involve the totality of one's life. You answer the offer of grace from the holy mystery whether or not you are aware of it. I'm sorry that you are not able to understand at this time. You seem to be minimizing the most important question in life. I wish you would read the kindle book that I recommended, but perhaps you don't have the necessary experience and background to understand it now.

I think you ought to be able to talk more deeply and intelligently about the subject rather than trivialize it with comparisons like the tooth fairy or whatever. Perhaps you should read philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Martin Heidegger. But I think you should read Karl Rahner. Atheists should have a firm grasp on the subject too. If you're going to come into a Christian forum to discredit God, bring something to the table, like a strong philosophical argument.

Apparently you disagree with me. What would a third option be in addition to believing a god exists and not holding a belief that a god exists?

 

[Munising]

I'm not wondering about the logical method/s you may be using, I am just wondering how you can be sure that LOGIC is the ultimate measure to tell whether or not God exists?

If the god you're positing possesses two conflicting characteristics, then the logic I'm using will show that your god can't exist. Example: if your god loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything. If true, then why would there be pain and suffering in this world? God either doesn't love everyone or can't do anything.

 

[steve_bakr]

Apparently you disagree with me. What would a third option be in addition to believing a god exists and not holding a belief that a god exists?

I was only suggesting that you get deeper into this important question. You keep repeating the same "either A or B" quasi-logic. The existence of God does not depend on belief or unbelief. You're just scratching the surface.

 

[seashale76]

If the god you're positing possesses two conflicting characteristics, then the logic I'm using will show that your god can't exist. Example: if your god loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything. If true, then why would there be pain and suffering in this world? God either doesn't love everyone or can't do anything.

Sometimes our contrived dichotomies are inefficient for explaining the very concept of God and His nature. From a Christian perspective, God allows pain and suffering as such things can be the impetus for people coming to salvation, and that perhaps they'd be worse off had they not experienced them. Just like the concept of heaven and hell, it is often people's misperceptions of them that cause them issues (they're both two different states of the same experience, which is being directly in God's presence- which doesn't change for anyone).

I'm sure you've likely seen this before, as it's appeared in other threads you've participated in.

In the Orthodox Church- we apply something calling apophatic theology (negative theology)- to describe God by saying what God isn't instead of what God is. We believe that God's essence is unknowable and ineffable. However, we can participate in God's energies.

Examples:
No one has seen or can see God (John 1:18).
He lives in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16).
His ways are unsearchable and unfathomable (Job 11:7-8; Romans 11:33-36).

Because of this- in order for us to participate in the energies of God/attain salvation- we need Christ (very God of very God- both fully God and fully man). We can know God via the person of Christ.

Salvation happened in the past. Via the incarnation (specifically the hypostatic union), it became possible for us to attain theosis. To one in the Church (a Christian), we are being saved. If we persevere, we will be saved in the future. Those in the Church are part of the body of Christ and have the Holy Trinity living in them. Through the life of the Church, the Holy Mysteries, and the power of the Holy Spirit, we are empowered to do good works. Anyone living out their life in the Church will be changed/transfigured. This is only possible through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. We must daily pick up our cross and follow Him. Christ’s suffering death on the cross and resurrection made it possible for us to now have a way through suffering and a way to reconcile ourselves to God (abolishing sin and death) through his human nature. Christ’s ultimate act of suffering love gives us His saving companionship and grace. We can literally be baptized into Christ as part of His body (Church/Israel). Through our life in the Church, the ultimate hospital for sinners, we hope to one day attain theosis and participate in the divine energies of God.

 

[steve_bakr]

If the god you're positing possesses two conflicting characteristics, then the logic I'm using will show that your god can't exist. Example: if your god loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything. If true, then why would there be pain and suffering in this world? God either doesn't love everyone or can't do anything.

For one thing, because man has free will, and is entitled to be responsible for himself. On another note, you haven't established that all suffering is evil. It can be a teacher and even redemptive. The problem of evil is an important topic, but once again you are using the same quasi-logical "either A or B" exercise. Is light a wave or a particle? A or B? Now your logic breaks down, doesn't it? You're using the same old playbook, and it doesn't get to the heart of the matter at all. Is this a quest for truth or a game of chess? Let's break out of that paradigm of linear thinking. It is helpful only to a certain point.

 

[cerette]

If the god you're positing possesses two conflicting characteristics, then the logic I'm using will show that your god can't exist. Example: if your god loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything. If true, then why would there be pain and suffering in this world? God either doesn't love everyone or can't do anything.

I understand that according to the logic you're using you come to the conclusion that there is no God.But what I am wondering is how can you be sure that the logic you're using IS the ultimate measure to tell if God exists?

 

[JGG]

God cannot be encompassed by logic but is he who encompasses all logic.

What does that actually mean?

You are mistaking a philosophical problem for a quasi-logical exercise. In principle, I really don't mind discussing this issue with atheists, but your comment is clearly stereotypical of most atheists who come in here and is thus disappointing. Do you have any deeper and more substantial arguments?

This thread is entitled "How can Christians better understand what a non-theist believes?"

So understand me this way: I don't like to make deep substantial arguments. My method of understanding things doesn't depend on arguments. My method of understanding depends on parsing through ideas, and finding out where each one comes from. In short: I like to ask questions. My favorite questions are "What does that actually mean?" and "How do you know that for sure?" When it comes to God there are just too many answers to questions that don't actually answer the question.

A poster implied that God was that either God is illogical, or the only reliable tool at our disposal for following cause & effect chains is useless. Either way, it's a problem for me.

Have you read Karl Rahner's arguments in "Spirit in the World" or "Hearers of the Word," for example?

This thread is entitled "How can Christians better understand what a non-theist believes?" It is not apologetics. If you want to make arguments there is a whole section of the forum where you can try to convert Christians to Christianity.

 

[steve_bakr]

What does that actually mean?

This thread is entitled "How can Christians better understand what a non-theist believes?"

So understand me this way: I don't like to make deep substantial arguments. My method of understanding things doesn't depend on arguments. My method of understanding depends on parsing through ideas, and finding out where each one comes from. In short: I like to ask questions. My favorite questions are "What does that actually mean?" and "How do you know that for sure?" When it comes to God there are just too many answers to questions that don't actually answer the question.

A poster implied that God was that either God is illogical, or the only reliable tool at our disposal for following cause & effect chains is useless. Either way, it's a problem for me.

This thread is entitled "How can Christians better understand what a non-theist believes?" It is not apologetics. If you want to make arguments there is a whole section of the forum where you can try to convert Christians to Christianity.

What it means is that our logic is a little construct that we have by which we measure certain concepts as in geometry. But the infinite is beyond these constructs and you cannot measure that by which things are measured.

I am not trying to convert someone who does not want to be converted. I am, however, promoting a deeper understanding of the subject--i.e. understanding the subject from a philosophical point of view. Otherwise, the argument against God gets boring.

Immanuel Kant, for example, who inspired some of the transcendental anthropology of Karl Rahner with his "turn to the subject," concluded that it is not possible to have a knowledgable experience of God, whereby Rahner concluded that a certain knowledge of God is unavoidable.

I am not encountering here arguments such as these but an ABC-type simplistic approach and a disdain for education or simply a lack of awareness of the depth of the subject.

Even an atheist at some point considers seriously the problem of the existence of God--or will. The subject is embedded in our nature and that is why you come to a Christian forum to talk about it. I imagine that if you were an atheist through and through you wouldn't be here or think about the subject even from the limited standpoint that you are proposing. So, in a sense, your actions and protests affirm God in a certain way.

I am all for understanding the non-Christian, atheist, or agnostic and I try to do that. But this thread seems to really not be about that but about a limited attempt at discrediting God.

BTW, I like the question, "What does it mean?" and could talk about it at length. The question is, "Are you a "hearer of the word"? It may be that you are not at this time.

 

[aiki]

Do you believe Bigfoot exists? Probably not. Is the burden of proof upon you to show Bigfoot doesn't exist? Or is the burden of proof upon those who are positing that Bigfoot does exist?

If I say, "I don't believe Bigfoot exists," then I am making a knowledge claim that requires justification. If I say, "I have no belief about Bigfoot's existence," then I am saying I have no opinion about Bigfoot, pro or con. As I pointed out before, negative assertions/statements can and are proved, so the atheist can't escape his responsibility for justifying their belief that God does not exist by declaring himself exempt from providing proof. And if the atheist states that he has no belief at all about Bigfoot, then he effectively removes himself from discussion about Bigfoot. What is there to say when one doesn't believe Bigfoot exists and that one doesn't believe Bigfoot doesn't exist?

If asked, I can provide justification for my position. I've evaluated all the claims I've heard Christians make, observed everything all my senses and intellect can detect and have determined there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god. That's my justification.

But this doesn't prove God doesn't exist, nor does it show that the reasons Christians have for believing in God are not rational and sound. All it shows is your unwillingness to concede to the import of the evidence in favor of God's existence. It isn't of any value to say, "I don't find the evidence compelling." What you must do to show the other side is in error is demonstrate that their evidence is clearly faulty or unreasonable. If you can do that, then you can argue for more than your mere bias or opinion (which is what you're doing at the moment).

If I posit that there are a million purple unicorns roaming the plains of western Kansas, can you prove that's not true?

That depends. If the unicorns are merely invisible, then that would mean they are only visually imperceptible. We could hear them, surely, roaming the plains in such a huge number. We would see the result of their movements on the plain, see the grass they had eaten, and their manure piles. We could smell them, as well. Of course, none of these things are evident on the plains of Kansas so it is very unlikely that such vast numbers of unicorns are actually there.

That is true, your cat Muff and all human babies - having no belief that a god exists - would be atheists. (unless 'atheist' applies only to humans).

What you seem to miss is that saying, "I have no belief in God at all," makes your atheism on par with saying, "My cat has no belief in God." If someone said this to me about their cat, it would be quite a trivial and pointless remark - just as it is when you say it about yourself.

What do you think my viewpoint is? Do you think it is something other than "I don't hold the belief that a god exists"? If so, what do you think it is?

Either you're being purposefully obtuse or you're not reading my posts well. Go back and re-read what I've said about the import of not having any belief in God whatsoever. Tell me how what I wrote is not true of such a perspective.

Selah.

 

[Munising]

You started this thread with the seemingly genuine premise that you wanted Christians to understand atheists. Well meaning people on here fell into the trap of engaging with you. You have now shown your true colours, not by helping us to understand you, but by trying to argue every point we present.

I'm not the one who has introduced disagreeing viewpoints. Others have, and I have responded accordingly.

If you are a typical atheist then I can happily tell you that your original post has been answered. I now fully understand you.

What is a "typical atheist"?

How do you determine when an "ask a(n) insert-a-type-of-person-here a question" type of thread as being answered?

As for the question you've asked above, I'll explain something you obviously don't know: Both Santa and the Tooth Fairy are your parents.

Then why bother to call them Santa and the Tooth Fairy? Why not call them parents?

I hope that's not too shocking. I was both to my kids too. By way of contrast, very few parents claim to have created the universe. We don't have to disprove Santa and the Tooth Fairy because we already know they're fictional constructs. You believe God is too, which is why you're an atheist.

There is nothing to indicate the God of the Bible is anything other than fictional.

Now if you can prove to me that God is a fictional construct we can have a discussion. Until then, I'm out. Just remember that after 11 years as a fully functional, debating, militant atheist, I probably know your next move. But I was as wrong then as you are now.

The burden of proof is not upon me to show that God doesn't exist. The burden of proof is upon you to show he does exist.

I suggest you read Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note this part:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

Also read Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note this part:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[Munising]

I was only suggesting that you get deeper into this important question. You keep repeating the same "either A or B" quasi-logic. The existence of God does not depend on belief or unbelief. You're just scratching the surface.

Correct. A god either exists or doesn't exist. What each of us believes has no bearing on that truth.

Since there isn't sufficient evidence that a god exists, I don't hold the belief that a god exists. When sufficient evidence is forthcoming, then I'll move towards holding a belief that a god exists. Until then, for me to believe a god exists would be dishonest, disrespectful and irresponsible to both myself and to others.

 

[Munising]

For one thing, because man has free will, and is entitled to be responsible for himself. On another note, you haven't established that all suffering is evil. It can be a teacher and even redemptive. The problem of evil is an important topic, but once again you are using the same quasi-logical "either A or B" exercise. Is light a wave or a particle? A or B? Now your logic breaks down, doesn't it? You're using the same old playbook, and it doesn't get to the heart of the matter at all. Is this a quest for truth or a game of chess? Let's break out of that paradigm of linear thinking. It is helpful only to a certain point.

If you're correct, then you should be able to show me how the following two can both be true:
1) A plus B is equal to C
2) C minus B is not equal to A