How would an atheist-materialist become a Christian?

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hey,

I want to explore some of the "weaknesses" in my beliefs and to try to become much more emotionally open to the possibility of religious belief (Christianity being the culturally dominant one and the one I am superficially most familiar with). Rather than struggle with this on my own, it makes more sense to ask people who may have been there and already know the answers.

I am an atheist and a "dialectical materialist" (i.e. the materialism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc). I have had Communist sympathies for many years but due to the extreme nature of the violence involved it has proven to be a nihilistic challenge to my sense of values. its been a slow process of eroding the original convictions, seeing through my pride until I realise how "hollow" it is and come to terms with its more disturbing implications. Marxism is a deterministic belief system incomparable with the widely accepted definition of "freedom" and determinism provides the intellectual basis for totalitarian control and manipulation (i.e. if you can scientifically predict human behaviour, you can "change" it to suit your purposes so people become a means rather than an ends in themselves). Moreover, it shares quite strong similarities with Social Darwinism in treating human beings as "animals" without inherent rights, dignity arising from a "soul" so you could almost call it "pagan" or "satanist" in the degree which it rejects Christian ethics.

I've grown up a lot and recognised just how incomplete, inadequate and ignorant my beliefs are. About age 18, I had the onset of depression and "needed answers". Due to the narrow and bigoted nature of my atheism at the time I chose to become a Communist in order to find that sense of meaning and purpose that I was lacking. I will turn 28 in a months time and after a decade of being a materialist, what has become clear is just how "complicated" the explanations are. That has proven to be both very frustrating, confusing and a source of doubt as I'm left with the sense that Marxists never really asked the "deep" questions and simply took the "truth" of their beliefs for granted as a "scientific materialist worldview". bluntly, there has never been a single text where Marxists stated their beliefs at a philosophical level in a coherent way that could stand up to scrutiny (Joseph Stalin's dialectical and historical materialism coming the closest but its still pretty bad). depression has made me appreciate the need for "faith" in that I have had to believe in myself and recognise that the "reality" of those things that make me depressed is in part an illusion, and something I can change to an extent by thinking in new ways. So its been a long process of searching.

I've realised I'm actually afraid of religious experience because it would mean not being in "control" as well as the various taboos about it being "irrational", built on "blind-faith", etc. So I want to get some general input on how an atheist would become a Christian and see "if the glove fits". On some of the more specific stuff:

1. How strong is the argument that Science and Religion are compatible rather than being in conflict? Can Old-Earth Creationism built on theistic evolution and treating the big bang as "creation" be taken seriously? Can Natural Theology or Christian Deism be a route to Religious conviction?

2. How does historical research into the accuracy and the legitimacy of the bible as a source effect you're beliefs? Has reading the bible affected your perception of Christianity? Is it better to read something like Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles or another book to make sense of the bible for a non-Christian in order to grasp its meaning?

3. Can revelation be a legitimate source of knowledge? Can mysticism and inner experience be treated as a source of knowledge?

4. How would you defend "free will" from people saying determinism is a more "scientific" position? Or can free will be defended Scientifically or is science inadequate to get to the truth on this?

5. Is Christian Natural Law the basis for personal liberty and free society? Can society ever be truly "secular" without falling into the trap of state atheism? (i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.")

6. If you have become a Christian from being an atheist (or another religion) how did you deal with the inner and emotional discomfort of converting? How did you become emotionally and spiritually open to the idea?

Anyway, I hope after reading this you'll see what I'm getting at and trying to do and its honestly meant. It's that having been anti-religious coming round to the idea of taking religious belief and experience seriously is "unexpected" and a little unnerving. you may understand the feeling if the situation were reversed- but I don't have much to lose by trying.

I'm asking quite a lot here so I don't mind if you're replies are long or short. I will read them all. if it helps, feel free to ask anything you want and any advice or suggestions are very welcome. Thanks in advance. :)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: zippy2006

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Hey,

I want to explore some of the "weaknesses" in my beliefs and to try to become much more emotionally open to the possibility of religious belief (Christianity being the culturally dominant one and the one I am superficially most familiar with). Rather than struggle with this on my own, it makes more sense to ask people who may have been there and already know the answers.

I am an atheist and a "dialectical materialist" (i.e. the materialism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc). I have had Communist sympathies for many years but due to the extreme nature of the violence involved it has proven to be a nihilistic challenge to my sense of values. its been a slow process of eroding the original convictions, seeing through my pride until I realise how "hollow" it is and come to terms with its more disturbing implications. Marxism is a deterministic belief system incomparable with the widely accepted definition of "freedom" and determinism provides the intellectual basis for totalitarian control and manipulation (i.e. if you can scientifically predict human behaviour, you can "change" it to suit your purposes so people become a means rather than an ends in themselves). Moreover, it shares quite strong similarities with Social Darwinism in treating human beings as "animals" without inherent rights, dignity arising from a "soul" so you could almost call it "pagan" or "satanist" in the degree which it rejects Christian ethics.

I've grown up a lot and recognised just how incomplete, inadequate and ignorant my beliefs are. About age 18, I had the onset of depression and "needed answers". Due to the narrow and bigoted nature of my atheism at the time I chose to become a Communist in order to find that sense of meaning and purpose that I was lacking. I will turn 28 in a months time and after a decade of being a materialist, what has become clear is just how "complicated" the explanations are. That has proven to be both very frustrating, confusing and a source of doubt as I'm left with the sense that Marxists never really asked the "deep" questions and simply took the "truth" of their beliefs for granted as a "scientific materialist worldview". bluntly, there has never been a single text where Marxists stated their beliefs at a philosophical level in a coherent way that could stand up to scrutiny (Joseph Stalin's dialectical and historical materialism coming the closest but its still pretty bad). depression has made me appreciate the need for "faith" in that I have had to believe in myself and recognise that the "reality" of those things that make me depressed is in part an illusion, and something I can change to an extent by thinking in new ways. So its been a long process of searching.

I've realised I'm actually afraid of religious experience because it would mean not being in "control" as well as the various taboos about it being "irrational", built on "blind-faith", etc. So I want to get some general input on how an atheist would become a Christian and see "if the glove fits". On some of the more specific stuff:

1. How strong is the argument that Science and Religion are compatible rather than being in conflict? Can Old-Earth Creationism built on theistic evolution and treating the big bang as "creation" be taken seriously? Can Natural Theology or Christian Deism be a route to Religious conviction?

2. How does historical research into the accuracy and the legitimacy of the bible as a source effect you're beliefs? Has reading the bible affected your perception of Christianity? Is it better to read something like Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles or another book to make sense of the bible for a non-Christian in order to grasp its meaning?

3. Can revelation be a legitimate source of knowledge? Can mysticism and inner experience be treated as a source of knowledge?

4. How would you defend "free will" from people saying determinism is a more "scientific" position? Or can free will be defended Scientifically or is science inadequate to get to the truth on this?

5. Is Christian Natural Law the basis for personal liberty and free society? Can society ever be truly "secular" without falling into the trap of state atheism? (i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.")

6. If you have become a Christian from being an atheist (or another religion) how did you deal with the inner and emotional discomfort of converting? How did you become emotionally and spiritually open to the idea?

Anyway, I hope after reading this you'll see what I'm getting at and trying to do and its honestly meant. It's that having been anti-religious coming round to the idea of taking religious belief and experience seriously is "unexpected" and a little unnerving. you may understand the feeling if the situation were reversed- but I don't have much to lose by trying.

I'm asking quite a lot here so I don't mind if you're replies are long or short. I will read them all. if it helps, feel free to ask anything you want and any advice or suggestions are very welcome. Thanks in advance. :)
you may interested in this argument:

the self replicating watch argument

do you think its a good argument? if not why?
 
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,088
4,321
52
undisclosed Bunker
✟287,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
1. How strong is the argument that Science and Religion are compatible rather than being in conflict? Can Old-Earth Creationism built on theistic evolution and treating the big bang as "creation" be taken seriously? Can Natural Theology or Christian Deism be a route to Religious conviction?

I don't think that science and faith need to be incompatible, I would suggest reading The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. It was beautiful and opened my eyes in a new way to creation stories and how they fit into a universe that involves things like relativity. This book opened the door to a walk back from a new perspective. There are some lectures on youtube that he gives which you can find, though the book is much more comprehensive.

2. How does historical research into the accuracy and the legitimacy of the bible as a source effect you're beliefs? Has reading the bible affected your perception of Christianity? Is it better to read something like Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles or another book to make sense of the bible for a non-Christian in order to grasp its meaning?

History is very important to me. "Everything happens for a reason" and those reasons are in the past. I eventually followed the trail back to the Eastern Orthodox. There are a wealth of traditions and writings that I believe were meant to go hand in hand with the Scriptures. A favorite book is "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware, but you can go all the way back to things like Athanasius, On The Incarnation, circa 350AD or even further. There's a whole world of thought and interpretation available.

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf

The bible is the lynchpin though, the cornerstone, if you will.

3. Can revelation be a legitimate source of knowledge? Can mysticism and inner experience be treated as a source of knowledge?

Yes and it is very personal, but I would be cautious of it in a vacuum

4. How would you defend "free will" from people saying determinism is a more "scientific" position? Or can free will be defended Scientifically or is science inadequate to get to the truth on this?

lol that's a tough one. I think you just have to experience it for a while :)

5. Is Christian Natural Law the basis for personal liberty and free society? Can society ever be truly "secular" without falling into the trap of state atheism? (i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.")

The other big influence in my life was Leo Tolstoy's What I Believe. This was profound and again, opened the door for me to come back to God. I really think with your marxist / atheist background this book will have a big influence upon you as it did for me. It was his own personal journey and experience/revelation of the Christian faith. I do not agree with everything that he said and he wrote it partially in reaction to the ills that he saw of the Orthodox Church (which, years later, I joined). One of the things that Tolstoy seemed to feel was that 'we could do it alone of our own unaided strength', and I don't think that was ever meant to be. But I do believe that God wanted me to have both sides of the coin, the pure tradition, and the raw revelation, and I'm the better for it. Definitely check this book out. You can listen to the audio book (as I have, many times) on Librivox

"Everybody thinks of changing the world, nobody thinks about changing themselves" ~Tolstoy

LibriVox

But also visit the book the Orthodox Way, so you too have both sides of the coin.

6. If you have become a Christian from being an atheist (or another religion) how did you deal with the inner and emotional discomfort of converting? How did you become emotionally and spiritually open to the idea?

This might not be applicable to me, I was raised Pentecostal but walked away from it and the 12 Steps of Recovery opened the door to me to consider God in a new light, which I did. It was a 3 year journey later that took me back to where I am today.

http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf

It was a long time before I became a Christian again, I started from scratch, threw everything out and sought God rawly. But the 12 Steps struck me as a sort of a 'zen Christianity'. This is, I thought, what it was always supposed to be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Adstar

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2005
2,184
1,382
New South Wales
✟49,258.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I've realised I'm actually afraid of religious experience because it would mean not being in "control"

If God exists.. And He does.... then He is in control.... God does not suddenly gain control when a person believe He exists.. And God does not suddenly lose control if that same person ceases to believe He exists..

2. How does historical research into the accuracy and the legitimacy of the bible as a source effect you're beliefs? Has reading the bible affected your perception of Christianity? Is it better to read something like Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles or another book to make sense of the bible for a non-Christian in order to grasp its meaning?

I became a Christian after reading the Bible.... I did believe in God at the time however.. But i was not a Christian.. Relying on books written by people about God is like playing Russian roulette.. Your relying on the author being correct.. When it comes to God and things to do with God i trust no man to be my guide.. God can make one wise to understand what He wants them to understand, when He wants them to understand it..

3. Can revelation be a legitimate source of knowledge?

Yes it can. If God causes it to happen.. And no it is not if a fallen angel / demonic spirit causes it to happen... How does one tell the difference?? By using the Bible as a testing gauge to see if the revelation is not giving information contrary to the will of God expressed in the Bible.... So being totally dependent on things like dreams and visions and other experiences is again like playing spiritual Russian roulette...

4. How would you defend "free will" from people saying determinism is a more "scientific" position? Or can free will be defended Scientifically or is science inadequate to get to the truth on this?

It can be personally defended by personal observation.. For example i may have a short temper but at the same time hate the fact that i have a short temper and wish that i had more self control and handled things in a more calm way... My tendency is to blow up in peoples faces but my free will is free to either like the fact that i have a bad temper or hate the fact that i have a bad temper.. Thus i have free will..

6. If you have become a Christian from being an atheist (or another religion) how did you deal with the inner and emotional discomfort of converting? How did you become emotionally and spiritually open to the idea?

I simply had to deal with the resistance i received from others.. I lost a few friends and i gained a few friends. The emotional discomfort came during the process of becoming a Christian.. The more i read the Bible the more uncomfortable i was with myself not being a Christian.. So becoming a Christian was a releaf.. Staying an unbeliever was simply an impossible position to retain... The message of the Gospels made me open to the idea...

Anyway, I hope after reading this you'll see what I'm getting at and trying to do and its honestly meant. It's that having been anti-religious coming round to the idea of taking religious belief and experience seriously is "unexpected" and a little unnerving.

The Leap of Faith always has an element of trepidation.. But when the Holy Spirit is working on you it is almost impossible to turn back and walk away...
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey,

I want to explore some of the "weaknesses" in my beliefs and to try to become much more emotionally open to the possibility of religious belief (Christianity being the culturally dominant one and the one I am superficially most familiar with). Rather than struggle with this on my own, it makes more sense to ask people who may have been there and already know the answers.

I am an atheist and a "dialectical materialist" (i.e. the materialism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc). I have had Communist sympathies for many years but due to the extreme nature of the violence involved it has proven to be a nihilistic challenge to my sense of values. its been a slow process of eroding the original convictions, seeing through my pride until I realise how "hollow" it is and come to terms with its more disturbing implications. Marxism is a deterministic belief system incomparable with the widely accepted definition of "freedom" and determinism provides the intellectual basis for totalitarian control and manipulation (i.e. if you can scientifically predict human behaviour, you can "change" it to suit your purposes so people become a means rather than an ends in themselves). Moreover, it shares quite strong similarities with Social Darwinism in treating human beings as "animals" without inherent rights, dignity arising from a "soul" so you could almost call it "pagan" or "satanist" in the degree which it rejects Christian ethics.

I've grown up a lot and recognised just how incomplete, inadequate and ignorant my beliefs are. About age 18, I had the onset of depression and "needed answers". Due to the narrow and bigoted nature of my atheism at the time I chose to become a Communist in order to find that sense of meaning and purpose that I was lacking. I will turn 28 in a months time and after a decade of being a materialist, what has become clear is just how "complicated" the explanations are. That has proven to be both very frustrating, confusing and a source of doubt as I'm left with the sense that Marxists never really asked the "deep" questions and simply took the "truth" of their beliefs for granted as a "scientific materialist worldview". bluntly, there has never been a single text where Marxists stated their beliefs at a philosophical level in a coherent way that could stand up to scrutiny (Joseph Stalin's dialectical and historical materialism coming the closest but its still pretty bad). depression has made me appreciate the need for "faith" in that I have had to believe in myself and recognise that the "reality" of those things that make me depressed is in part an illusion, and something I can change to an extent by thinking in new ways. So its been a long process of searching.

I've realised I'm actually afraid of religious experience because it would mean not being in "control" as well as the various taboos about it being "irrational", built on "blind-faith", etc. So I want to get some general input on how an atheist would become a Christian and see "if the glove fits". On some of the more specific stuff:

1. How strong is the argument that Science and Religion are compatible rather than being in conflict? Can Old-Earth Creationism built on theistic evolution and treating the big bang as "creation" be taken seriously? Can Natural Theology or Christian Deism be a route to Religious conviction?

2. How does historical research into the accuracy and the legitimacy of the bible as a source effect you're beliefs? Has reading the bible affected your perception of Christianity? Is it better to read something like Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles or another book to make sense of the bible for a non-Christian in order to grasp its meaning?

3. Can revelation be a legitimate source of knowledge? Can mysticism and inner experience be treated as a source of knowledge?

4. How would you defend "free will" from people saying determinism is a more "scientific" position? Or can free will be defended Scientifically or is science inadequate to get to the truth on this?

5. Is Christian Natural Law the basis for personal liberty and free society? Can society ever be truly "secular" without falling into the trap of state atheism? (i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.")

6. If you have become a Christian from being an atheist (or another religion) how did you deal with the inner and emotional discomfort of converting? How did you become emotionally and spiritually open to the idea?

Anyway, I hope after reading this you'll see what I'm getting at and trying to do and its honestly meant. It's that having been anti-religious coming round to the idea of taking religious belief and experience seriously is "unexpected" and a little unnerving. you may understand the feeling if the situation were reversed- but I don't have much to lose by trying.

I'm asking quite a lot here so I don't mind if you're replies are long or short. I will read them all. if it helps, feel free to ask anything you want and any advice or suggestions are very welcome. Thanks in advance. :)

Hello Red Economist,

You definitely have an extensive and intellectually tinged set of inquiries here. However, as one who has studied some aspects of Marxism and some of the other issues regarding the nature of science you've mentioned, I can say that yes, it is possible for you to become a Christian without too much emotional strain. I think you should just treat your current interest in Christianity as an opportunity for new exploration rather than a full, head-on 'conversion.' If and when the time is right and you come to feel the truth of the Christian faith, then you can step over that line with God's help.

Also, I'm thinking it would be better for you to read a few books which address the issues you are wrestling with that offer you a higher quality set of answers. The books I would offer would not be the typical "christian" books.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Without getting to philosophical: “Something has had to always exist since it is illogical to think something comes from nothing. Now some atheists have tried to get around this by saying nothing is really “something” and there is no such thing as really “nothing”. The bottom line is there has always been something. Now did that something at least include intelligence or was it just mass/energy/time/space? The problem with “excluding” intelligence is there appears to be a huge amount of intelligence that went into the design of this universe and life that makes it virtually impossible to happen by random “luck”. If there is one thing we have learned it is: “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”, so that means an ever increasing complex universe and the more complex it is the more random chances you need to make the right conditions without intelligence and the more likely scenario is there was intelligence involved.







If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.



The reason you have free will is because it is required for you to complete your earthly objective.

This messed up world is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes, since that force compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time:

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).



An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).



This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.



Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.



All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.
 
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
you may interested in this argument:

the self replicating watch argument

do you think its a good argument? if not why?

many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it have those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a naturall process (because as far as we know a watch (with springs and a motion system and so on) need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day.

flagellum‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

I actually have a copy of William Paley's "Natural Theology" on my book shelf but haven't got further than the first few chapters. The watchmaker is in the first chapter. :D

The "predictable" answer I could give you is that "there is no evidence to support the watchmaker argument", but that's not true. Science isn't pure but relies on philosophical assumptions. Attributing the cause to either matter or to "consciousness" is partly a question of interpretation. The advantage of attributing a "material" cause is that it is objective, the causation is predictable and can be reproduced. Many of the observations of Darwin's theory of natural selection came from studying "domestic selection" such as pigeon fanciers, or interbreeding of chickens to increase meat/egg yield, etc. Darwin borrowed the ideas of Thomas Malthus to find a mechanism for how this process could occur without human intervention by competition for resources and sexual partners.

In so far as we can reproduce the process of natural selection we can say it is a material cause. When you're dealing with the "big stuff" like "was the universe created by a designer or did it have a material cause" the sheer scale and level of abstraction means this cannot be reproduced. its difficult to "observe" and so you can't demonstrate the interpretation either way and relies on more on philosophical preference. I prefer materialism, but I couldn't tell you its because its "true". At that point- I admit it starts to sound more like "faith". its just not clear why I would prefer one explanation over another.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I actually have a copy of William Paley's "Natural Theology" on my book shelf but haven't got further than the first few chapters. The watchmaker is in the first chapter. :D

The "predictable" answer I could give you is that "there is no evidence to support the watchmaker argument", but that's not true. Science isn't pure but relies on philosophical assumptions. Attributing the cause to either matter or to "consciousness" is partly a question of interpretation. The advantage of attributing a "material" cause is that it is objective, the causation is predictable and can be reproduced. Many of the observations of Darwin's theory of natural selection came from studying "domestic selection" such as pigeon fanciers, or interbreeding of chickens to increase meat/egg yield, etc. Darwin borrowed the ideas of Thomas Malthus to find a mechanism for how this process could occur without human intervention by competition for resources and sexual partners.

In so far as we can reproduce the process of natural selection we can say it is a material cause. When you're dealing with the "big stuff" like "was the universe created by a designer or did it have a material cause" the sheer scale and level of abstraction means this cannot be reproduced. its difficult to "observe" and so you can't demonstrate the interpretation either way and relies on more on philosophical preference. I prefer materialism, but I couldn't tell you its because its "true". At that point- I admit it starts to sound more like "faith". its just not clear why I would prefer one explanation over another.

...Red Eco, it is this last bit that you're going to have to wrestle with the most since there is no consensus on either side of the debate, either between Christians on one side, or even among various atheists on the other. In fact, I'd say the crucial portion of your possible decision to take up Christian faith will be made up of how you define for yourself the structures of epistemology. Just sayin'-- since there's so much here that is open to interpretation, whether that interpretation is within the understanding of science, or philosophy, or even the nature of Christian faith.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hello Red Economist,

You definitely have quite an extensive, and an intellectually tinged, set of inquiries here. However, as one who has studied some aspects of Marxism and some of the other issues regarding the nature of science you've mentioned, I can say that yes, it is possible for you to become a Christian without too much emotional strain. You should probably just treat it as a moment for new exploration rather than a full, head-on 'conversion.'

Since you've asked a lot of questions, I'm thinking that since you're more intellectual, it would probably be better for you to read a few books that would address some of these issues and offer you a higher quality set of answers. The books I would offer would not be the typical "christian" books.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'll take that as a compliment, so thanks. These probably aren't things I will figure out in the course of a thread, but when you're lost it's good to ask directions. :D

I don't think that science and faith need to be incompatible, I would suggest reading The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. It was beautiful and opened my eyes in a new way to creation stories and how they fit into a universe that involves things like relativity. This book opened the door to a walk back from a new perspective. There are some lectures on youtube that he gives which you can find, though the book is much more comprehensive.



History is very important to me. "Everything happens for a reason" and those reasons are in the past. I eventually followed the trail back to the Eastern Orthodox. There are a wealth of traditions and writings that I believe were meant to go hand in hand with the Scriptures. A favorite book is "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware, but you can go all the way back to things like Athanasius, On The Incarnation, circa 350AD or even further. There's a whole world of thought and interpretation available.

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf

The bible is the lynchpin though, the cornerstone, if you will.



Yes and it is very personal, but I would be cautious of it in a vacuum



lol that's a tough one. I think you just have to experience it for a while :)



The other big influence in my life was Leo Tolstoy's What I Believe. This was profound and again, opened the door for me to come back to God. I really think with your marxist / atheist background this book will have a big influence upon you as it did for me. It was his own personal journey and experience/revelation of the Christian faith. I do not agree with everything that he said and he wrote it partially in reaction to the ills that he saw of the Orthodox Church (which, years later, I joined). One of the things that Tolstoy seemed to feel was that 'we could do it alone of our own unaided strength', and I don't think that was ever meant to be. But I do believe that God wanted me to have both sides of the coin, the pure tradition, and the raw revelation, and I'm the better for it. Definitely check this book out. You can listen to the audio book (as I have, many times) on Librivox

"Everybody thinks of changing the world, nobody thinks about changing themselves" ~Tolstoy

LibriVox

But also visit the book the Orthodox Way, so you too have both sides of the coin.



This might not be applicable to me, I was raised Pentecostal but walked away from it and the 12 Steps of Recovery opened the door to me to consider God in a new light, which I did. It was a 3 year journey later that took me back to where I am today.

http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf

It was a long time before I became a Christian again, I started from scratch, threw everything out and sought God rawly. But the 12 Steps struck me as a sort of a 'zen Christianity'. This is, I thought, what it was always supposed to be.

Thanks for the book suggestions. I'll keep them in mind. :)

Einstein's Relativity was a massive headache for the Soviet physicists because its undermined the objectivity of time and space and suggested there was "something" outside it. It didn't fit into the "offical ideology" very well as atheistic-materialism generally favours a steady state model of the universe where there is no need for a cause or a creator, but the "big bang" through a spanner in the works. Science has very much turned against deterministic materialism when you look at the extreme ends of the scale of measuring time and space (cosmology and quantum mechanics) and its hard to defend it as "scientific" anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If God exists.. And He does.... then He is in control.... God does not suddenly gain control when a person believe He exists.. And God does not suddenly lose control if that same person ceases to believe He exists..

Good point.

I became a Christian after reading the Bible.... I did believe in God at the time however.. But i was not a Christian.. Relying on books written by people about God is like playing Russian roulette.. Your relying on the author being correct.. When it comes to God and things to do with God i trust no man to be my guide.. God can make one wise to understand what He wants them to understand, when He wants them to understand it..

Yes it can. If God causes it to happen.. And no it is not if a fallen angel / demonic spirit causes it to happen... How does one tell the difference?? By using the Bible as a testing gauge to see if the revelation is not giving information contrary to the will of God expressed in the Bible.... So being totally dependent on things like dreams and visions and other experiences is again like playing spiritual Russian roulette...

It can be personally defended by personal observation.. For example i may have a short temper but at the same time hate the fact that i have a short temper and wish that i had more self control and handled things in a more calm way... My tendency is to blow up in peoples faces but my free will is free to either like the fact that i have a bad temper or hate the fact that i have a bad temper.. Thus i have free will..

I'm just going to nod and be agreeable here because as much as I am tempted to criticise the specifics I can see a lot of potentially embarrassing parallels between your experience and mine. I have wondered if the "inner" experience of communism is like a religion and what you're describing is familiar as "truth" or "humanity", rather than god, act as a force that transcends the individual when you experience Communism as an inner dialogue with the self/the soul.

I simply had to deal with the resistance i received from others.. I lost a few friends and i gained a few friends. The emotional discomfort came during the process of becoming a Christian.. The more i read the Bible the more uncomfortable i was with myself not being a Christian.. So becoming a Christian was a releaf.. Staying an unbeliever was simply an impossible position to retain... The message of the Gospels made me open to the idea...

The Leap of Faith always has an element of trepidation.. But when the Holy Spirit is working on you it is almost impossible to turn back and walk away...

I've had the same experience reading Marxist literature and sort of wanting to turn away from what I suspect is the truth because it is so uncomfortable but then simply having to come to terms with something "greater" than myself. I wouldn't have thought of it in terms of the holy spirit though so its reassuring to know that its an experience we may have in common.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Without getting to philosophical: “Something has had to always exist since it is illogical to think something comes from nothing. Now some atheists have tried to get around this by saying nothing is really “something” and there is no such thing as really “nothing”. The bottom line is there has always been something. Now did that something at least include intelligence or was it just mass/energy/time/space? The problem with “excluding” intelligence is there appears to be a huge amount of intelligence that went into the design of this universe and life that makes it virtually impossible to happen by random “luck”. If there is one thing we have learned it is: “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”, so that means an ever increasing complex universe and the more complex it is the more random chances you need to make the right conditions without intelligence and the more likely scenario is there was intelligence involved.

If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.

The reason you have free will is because it is required for you to complete your earthly objective.

This messed up world is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.

So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes, since that force compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time:

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

You've said a lot here and I don't think I could really give you an adequate reply given the amount you've covered. Its helpful and I will have to think on it, so thanks. :)
 
Upvote 0

Adstar

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2005
2,184
1,382
New South Wales
✟49,258.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I have wondered if the "inner" experience of communism is like a religion

Well there is a similarity between Christianity and Communism. They are at their core idealistic. It's just that the Faith / Trust people need in the two different systems is placed in a different area..

In Communism Faith must be placed in oneself and ones fellow men... Since Communism is an idealistic system to succeed it needs perfect people who will not be corrupt or lazy or greedy or many other negative human traits that will see any attempted implementation of communism fail .. Like it has everywhere it has been tried..

So Communism fails because faith placed in human beings is needed for Communism to succeed..

In Christianity Faith is placed in God... And the success is looked forward to in the Next life.. Or as i usually say Eternity... So living in this faulty world to a Christian is a temporary thing.. I don't need to have faith in any other human being to be at peace being a Christian.. I do not need to listen to any pope pastor preacher or prelate.. I can have the Bible and read the message contained within. As a Christian i can stand alone.. And i often do in this forum on some religious doctrine matters.. As a Christian i am not here to work to create some idealistic religious nirvana on earth in my life or society..

Success and failure is dependent on God not on me or other human beings.. Yes it is good to do good deeds and help others and try to make this world as good a place as one can... But i am not called upon by God to make this world good... I am called upon to Believe Jesus and trust in the Way God has made for me to be saved from the outcome of my faultiness..

Anyway i am off to bed.. It's late here in Australia.. So a good night to you Red Economist..
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey,

I want to explore some of the "weaknesses" in my beliefs and to try to become much more emotionally open to the possibility of religious belief (Christianity being the culturally dominant one and the one I am superficially most familiar with). Rather than struggle with this on my own, it makes more sense to ask people who may have been there and already know the answers.

I am an atheist and a "dialectical materialist" (i.e. the materialism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc). I have had Communist sympathies for many years but due to the extreme nature of the violence involved it has proven to be a nihilistic challenge to my sense of values. its been a slow process of eroding the original convictions, seeing through my pride until I realise how "hollow" it is and come to terms with its more disturbing implications. Marxism is a deterministic belief system incomparable with the widely accepted definition of "freedom" and determinism provides the intellectual basis for totalitarian control and manipulation (i.e. if you can scientifically predict human behaviour, you can "change" it to suit your purposes so people become a means rather than an ends in themselves). Moreover, it shares quite strong similarities with Social Darwinism in treating human beings as "animals" without inherent rights, dignity arising from a "soul" so you could almost call it "pagan" or "satanist" in the degree which it rejects Christian ethics.

I've grown up a lot and recognised just how incomplete, inadequate and ignorant my beliefs are. About age 18, I had the onset of depression and "needed answers". Due to the narrow and bigoted nature of my atheism at the time I chose to become a Communist in order to find that sense of meaning and purpose that I was lacking. I will turn 28 in a months time and after a decade of being a materialist, what has become clear is just how "complicated" the explanations are. That has proven to be both very frustrating, confusing and a source of doubt as I'm left with the sense that Marxists never really asked the "deep" questions and simply took the "truth" of their beliefs for granted as a "scientific materialist worldview". bluntly, there has never been a single text where Marxists stated their beliefs at a philosophical level in a coherent way that could stand up to scrutiny (Joseph Stalin's dialectical and historical materialism coming the closest but its still pretty bad). depression has made me appreciate the need for "faith" in that I have had to believe in myself and recognise that the "reality" of those things that make me depressed is in part an illusion, and something I can change to an extent by thinking in new ways. So its been a long process of searching.

I've realised I'm actually afraid of religious experience because it would mean not being in "control" as well as the various taboos about it being "irrational", built on "blind-faith", etc. So I want to get some general input on how an atheist would become a Christian and see "if the glove fits". On some of the more specific stuff:

1. How strong is the argument that Science and Religion are compatible rather than being in conflict? Can Old-Earth Creationism built on theistic evolution and treating the big bang as "creation" be taken seriously? Can Natural Theology or Christian Deism be a route to Religious conviction?

2. How does historical research into the accuracy and the legitimacy of the bible as a source effect you're beliefs? Has reading the bible affected your perception of Christianity? Is it better to read something like Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles or another book to make sense of the bible for a non-Christian in order to grasp its meaning?

3. Can revelation be a legitimate source of knowledge? Can mysticism and inner experience be treated as a source of knowledge?

4. How would you defend "free will" from people saying determinism is a more "scientific" position? Or can free will be defended Scientifically or is science inadequate to get to the truth on this?

5. Is Christian Natural Law the basis for personal liberty and free society? Can society ever be truly "secular" without falling into the trap of state atheism? (i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.")

6. If you have become a Christian from being an atheist (or another religion) how did you deal with the inner and emotional discomfort of converting? How did you become emotionally and spiritually open to the idea?

Anyway, I hope after reading this you'll see what I'm getting at and trying to do and its honestly meant. It's that having been anti-religious coming round to the idea of taking religious belief and experience seriously is "unexpected" and a little unnerving. you may understand the feeling if the situation were reversed- but I don't have much to lose by trying.

I'm asking quite a lot here so I don't mind if you're replies are long or short. I will read them all. if it helps, feel free to ask anything you want and any advice or suggestions are very welcome. Thanks in advance. :)

Have you considered that some Christians actually use a little bit of Marxism as a point for critical social analysis? Not everything that Marx promulgated has to be thrown out necessarily...("just" 75% of it! :D) And there are some little bits in the Bible that actually do reflect the social class critique as well. Take the Letter of James as an example. In James 2:1-13 and James 5:1-6, we find some motifs regarding social justice that shouldn't be too far off from the 'Marxist' social platform. The judgement upon some aspects of the Bourgeoisie is similar (although I don't think God has any particular distaste for a middle-class in general); the main difference is in the Christian response to the social inequalities found in society (i.e. there is to be no violence from the Proletariat, but rather prayer, community service, and prophetic warning).

As Christians, we might also see that in some ways, God is 'processing' humanity and moving it to a further, future goal (i.e. through and away from sin), which is an aspect of Christian Eschatology. It is this 'processing' through the future that is one reason why some Christians say that Communism is really a 'rip off' of Christian eschatological expectations, and that it simply adopts it but with the social and economic and theological underpinnings exchanged out for dialectical materialism and economic theory.

Just something to think about. And an example of a Christian Social Critic who actually uses some Marxist motifs (without actually being Marxist) is Daniel M. Bell (PhD, Duke University). You mind find his book, "The Economy of Desire: Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World" to be a book worth reading at some point to get a taste for some of the alternative approaches to Christian faith and social economic analysis that are out there.

As to the overall issues pertaining to the clash between science and Christian faith, you might check out Biologos.org as an 'alternative' representing how the ideas of Theistic Evolution make it possible to respect science as it is normally practiced within the confines of Methodological Naturalism (rather than being displaced by the Philosophical Naturalism of those like Richard Dawkins), and still be able to hold that Christian thought provides us a reasonable mode for religious belief.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

paul1149

that your faith might rest in the power of God
Supporter
Mar 22, 2011
8,460
5,268
NY
✟674,364.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hi Red Economist,
I enjoyed your post. It was very articulate and seemed very honest. You might like the book, Marx and Satan, by Richard Wurmbrand. It's a short book, very simply written, but very powerful. He makes, in my mind, a conclusive case that Marx was not the atheist he pretended to be, but actually a satanist, and that his goal of uniting the human race for its own breaking into freedom was a lie to cover his design to actually destroy the human race. That probably sounds fantastic, but I would urge you to give the book at least a short try. I don't think you'll be disappointed. I found it free online.

There is no real dissonance between science and faith, so long as there is humility. A true scientist first of all considers the limits of his knowledge, and does not form conclusions that go beyond. And it goes for both sides. True faith also is able to say that it may not know all the details, and that indeed, as the Bible says, God cannot be fully grasped by the natural mind.

As for the subject question, the answer is simple. One can begin to find God by asking Him to reveal Himself. Do this even if you must append an "if You're there" to it. Spoken from a sincere heart, this is a prayer that will be heard. And then go about looking for Him. I would suggest to begin reading Scripture. You can do it with no obligation to believe or conform. Just read it to get to know what's going on. Have a particular emphasis on learning the character of Jesus. What made Him tick, what His goals were, what He accomplished. The Gospels are a good place to start, perhaps John. There are also good apologetic books, such as Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. The Bible comes first, but these other books can help.

The basic message is this: God loved you so much that He sent Jesus to die to pay your sin-debt and make reconciliation back to Him possible (John 3:16). Jesus could have had every good thing this life offers, but He turned it all down to bring you back to God, despite the suffering it entailed. Here are a few of the promises we have been given:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.
You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. -Jer 29:1-13

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” -Matt 11:28-30
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. -John 6:37
 
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well there is a similarity between Christianity and Communism. They are at their core idealistic. It's just that the Faith / Trust people need in the two different systems is placed in a different area..

In Communism Faith must be placed in oneself and ones fellow men... Since Communism is an idealistic system to succeed it needs perfect people who will not be corrupt or lazy or greedy or many other negative human traits that will see any attempted implementation of communism fail .. Like it has everywhere it has been tried..

So Communism fails because faith placed in human beings is needed for Communism to succeed..

In Christianity Faith is placed in God... And the success is looked forward to in the Next life.. Or as i usually say Eternity... So living in this faulty world to a Christian is a temporary thing.. I don't need to have faith in any other human being to be at peace being a Christian.. I do not need to listen to any pope pastor preacher or prelate.. I can have the Bible and read the message contained within. As a Christian i can stand alone.. And i often do in this forum on some religious doctrine matters.. As a Christian i am not here to work to create some idealistic religious nirvana on earth in my life or society..

Success and failure is dependent on God not on me or other human beings.. Yes it is good to do good deeds and help others and try to make this world as good a place as one can... But i am not called upon by God to make this world good... I am called upon to Believe Jesus and trust in the Way God has made for me to be saved from the outcome of my faultiness..

Anyway i am off to bed.. It's late here in Australia.. So a good night to you Red Economist..

that is very true. Communists have a history of starting personality cults around their leaders based on worshipping the symbolic role of individual figures as representative of "the vanguard of mankind", whilst totally whitewashing their personal histories and failings. When you stop and think about whether you can really believe in "people", worshipping God certainly has its advantages.

Good night adstar. :)

Have you considered that some Christians actually use a little bit of Marxism as a point for critical social analysis? Not everything that Marx promulgated has to be thrown out necessarily...("just" 75% of it! :D) And there are some little bits in the Bible that actually do reflect the social class critique as well. Take the Letter of James as an example. In James 2:1-13 and James 5:1-6, we find some motifs regarding social justice that shouldn't be too far off from the 'Marxist' social platform. The judgement upon some aspects of the Bourgeoisie is similar (although I don't think God has any particular distaste for a middle-class in general); the main difference is in the Christian response to the social inequalities found in society (i.e. there is to be no violence from the Proletariat, but rather prayer, community service, and prophetic warning).

As Christians, we might also see that in some ways, God is 'processing' humanity and moving it to a further, future goal (i.e. through and away from sin), which is an aspect of Christian Eschatology. It is this 'processing' through the future that is one reason why some Christians say that Communism is really a 'rip off' of Christian eschatological expectations, and that it simply adopts it but with the social and economic and theological underpinnings exchanged out for dialectical materialism and economic theory.

Just something to think about. And an example of a Christian Social Critic who actually uses some Marxist motifs (without actually being Marxist) is Daniel M. Bell (PhD, Duke University). You mind find his book, "The Economy of Desire: Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World" to be a book worth reading at some point to get a taste for some of the alternative approaches to Christian faith and social economic analysis that are out there.

As to the overall issues pertaining to the clash between science and Christian faith, you might check out Biologos.org as an 'alternative' representing how the ideas of Theistic Evolution make it possible to respect science as it is normally practiced within the confines of Methodological Naturalism (rather than being displaced by the Philosophical Naturalism of those like Richard Dawkins), and still be able to hold that Christian thought provides us a reasonable mode for religious belief.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

There are certainly similarities and many Marxist concepts could reflect similar social phenomena as those described in Christianity (the "general crisis of capitalism" invented by the Russian Bolsheviks after 1917 is very like the idea of an "apocalypse" as a judgement day for Capitalism and the Capitalist class with the communists as judge, jury and executioner ). However the substance of the theory is very different because Christianity is based on Natural Law built around a conception of the soul and human nature, whereas Marxism is closer to Social Darwinism and "might is right" philosophy of class struggle. It is Marxism's willingness to reject Natural Law as an "idealist" philosophy that makes it so problematic because rights cease to be inherent in the individual and instead become a form of "common property" owned and distributed by the state. The Catholic Church's 1937 Encyclical on Atheistic Communism was a very good understanding of what was going on. For Marxism-Leninism at least, it would be fair to treat claims of similarities with Christianity as little more than "packaging" the idea to suit an audience.

Divini Redemptoris (March 19, 1937) | PIUS XI

Hi Red Economist,
I enjoyed your post. It was very articulate and seemed very honest. You might like the book, Marx and Satan, by Richard Wurmbrand. It's a short book, very simply written, but very powerful. He makes, in my mind, a conclusive case that Marx was not the atheist he pretended to be, but actually a satanist, and that his goal of uniting the human race for its own breaking into freedom was a lie to cover his design to actually destroy the human race. That probably sounds fantastic, but I would urge you to give the book at least a short try. I don't think you'll be disappointed. I found it free online.

There is no real dissonance between science and faith, so long as there is humility. A true scientist first of all considers the limits of his knowledge, and does not form conclusions that go beyond. And it goes for both sides. True faith also is able to say that it may not know all the details, and that indeed, as the Bible says, God cannot be fully grasped by the natural mind.

As for the subject question, the answer is simple. One can begin to find God by asking Him to reveal Himself. Do this even if you must append an "if You're there" to it. Spoken from a sincere heart, this is a prayer that will be heard. And then go about looking for Him. I would suggest to begin reading Scripture. You can do it with no obligation to believe or conform. Just read it to get to know what's going on. Have a particular emphasis on learning the character of Jesus. What made Him tick, what His goals were, what He accomplished. The Gospels are a good place to start, perhaps John. There are also good apologetic books, such as Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. The Bible comes first, but these other books can help.

The basic message is this: God loved you so much that He sent Jesus to die to pay your sin-debt and make reconciliation back to Him possible (John 3:16). Jesus could have had every good thing this life offers, but He turned it all down to bring you back to God, despite the suffering it entailed. Here are a few of the promises we have been given:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.
You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. -Jer 29:1-13

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” -Matt 11:28-30
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. -John 6:37

Thanks Paul. :) I've have read through some of it recently and read Anton Le Vey's Satanic Bible as well. I feel fairly comfortable that there is something of the "left hand path" in Marxism as mankind's rebellion against "god" (as a symbol of the ruling class) in the pursuit of self-deification based on promises of the "light-bearer" of scientific knowledge illumating a path away from religious "illusions". There's definitely something in it.

The Satanic Bible was useful because it filled in some of the gaps over the moral implications of materialism as a social darwinist "might is right" philosophy. Le Vey also borrowed from Ayn Rand's "objectivism" which oddly fitted in with certain Marxist ideas too (at least when you get to Stalin who supported large economic inequality, competition and material incentives to get people to work). It wasn't long ago but it helped me realise I've been pursuing a sort of Christian or Liberal humanist idea all along and had never really been a Marxist because I'd hadn't been quite that brutal or cynical. Its not obvious with Marx, but by the time you get to Stalin the sadistic and Machiavellian nature of power becomes a real issue. Stalin himself joked to Winston Churchill:“God is on your side? Is He a Conservative? The Devil's on my side, he's a good Communist.” that's could well be pretty revealing for someone who was training to be an orthodox priest but I don't really want to find out for certain. :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are certainly similarities and many Marxist concepts could reflect similar social phenomena as those described in Christianity (the "general crisis of capitalism" invented by the Russian Bolsheviks after 1917 is very like the idea of an "apocalypse" as a judgement day for Capitalism and the Capitalist class with the communists as judge, jury and executioner ). However the substance of the theory is very different because Christianity is based on Natural Law built around a conception of the soul and human nature, whereas Marxism is closer to Social Darwinism and "might is right" philosophy of class struggle. It is Marxism's willingness to reject Natural Law as an "idealist" philosophy that makes it so problematic because rights cease to be inherent in the individual and instead become a form of "common property" owned and distributed by the state. The Catholic Church's 1937 Encyclical on Atheistic Communism was a very good understanding of what was going on. For Marxism-Leninism at least, it would be fair to treat claims of similarities with Christianity as little more than "packaging" the idea to suit an audience.

Divini Redemptoris (March 19, 1937) | PIUS XI

Thank you for the response. While I agree with much of what you say here, I wouldn't say that all Christians assume that Christianity is 'based' on Natural Law. In fact, if the epistemic indicators of the Bible are what I think they are, the underlying indicia of God's nature and the reflection of faith are only partially expressed in nature. The other significant portion comes by way of the act of Revelation given by God. So, we might be careful with that 'Natural Law' position; it is just one position among others. I say this not as a refutation, but as a little FYI for philosophical purposes.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I want to explore some of the "weaknesses" in my beliefs and to try to become much more emotionally open to the possibility of religious belief (Christianity being the culturally dominant one and the one I am superficially most familiar with). Rather than struggle with this on my own, it makes more sense to ask people who may have been there and already know the answers.

I hope CF is helpful in your search! Here are my two cents:

its been a slow process of eroding the original convictions, seeing through my pride until I realise how "hollow" it is and come to terms with its more disturbing implications.

In Christianity desires and drives may need to be tweaked, but never completely eradicated. Original convictions are one way that God speaks to us, and respecting them is one way we listen to him. Besides, if we remake ourselves, what pattern would we use to do so? And if there is no pattern, if we just make it up as we go, then what reason would we have to believe that such changes will actually make us happy?

1. How strong is the argument that Science and Religion are compatible rather than being in conflict?

You would be hard-pressed to find a respectable historian who still believes in the conflict thesis.

Can Old-Earth Creationism built on theistic evolution and treating the big bang as "creation" be taken seriously?

Sure. The creation account was being interpreted figuratively even from the time of St. Augustine. There is little evidence that it was meant to be a historical description.

Can Natural Theology or Christian Deism be a route to Religious conviction?

I don't see why not.

2. How does historical research into the accuracy and the legitimacy of the bible as a source effect you're beliefs? Has reading the bible affected your perception of Christianity?

The Bible is the basic document for Christianity, and it has certainly affected my perception. Yet I am a Catholic and therefore I believe that the proper context for the Bible is the believing community that produced it.

Is it better to read something like Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles or another book to make sense of the bible for a non-Christian in order to grasp its meaning?

I don't think so. The Bible is the story of God's rescue mission which culminates in Jesus Christ. I would start with the Gospels. If you desire a reference book for Christian doctrine I would recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church. A good introduction to the faith is Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity.

3. Can revelation be a legitimate source of knowledge?

Of course. If God desires to save us then he must communicate with us.

Can mysticism and inner experience be treated as a source of knowledge?

Certainly, but it must always be taken with a grain of salt. Such experiences can be influenced by many sources, internal and external. Humans are fallible, even in their exalted experiences.

4. How would you defend "free will" from people saying determinism is a more "scientific" position?

This is a big topic. I guess I would start by asking what evidence we have for the thesis that everything is solely accountable to deterministic laws? It seems to me that all of human experience runs contrary to such a thesis.

To quote Aquinas, "Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain."

Or can free will be defended Scientifically or is science inadequate to get to the truth on this?

It depends on your understanding of science. I would say that science presupposes free will, as any investigation into truth does. How else would you make sense of the idea that good science is praiseworthy and bad science blameworthy? That the scientist has a duty to follow truth wherever it leads? If the scientist has no control over the quality of his investigation then how can he be said to be a discoverer of truth?

5. Is Christian Natural Law the basis for personal liberty and free society?

Perhaps. Yet natural law is not meant to be distinctively Christian, even if it is often championed by Christians in our own day and age. Natural law is just the set of norms discernible from nature and reason. Christians have always held that the natural law is coordinated with the divine law.

Can society ever be truly "secular" without falling into the trap of state atheism? (i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.")

I guess I would need clarification before responding. Can you tease out what you mean?

6. If you have become a Christian from being an atheist (or another religion) how did you deal with the inner and emotional discomfort of converting? How did you become emotionally and spiritually open to the idea?

It's a slow process. A basic pivot for me was transitioning from someone who controls into someone who receives. I had to become someone who first receives from God and his creation rather than someone who tries to control everything that happens to me. That can be frightening. To quote C. S. Lewis:

You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in, have been so abused be wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0