Prove It

I was surfing some of the most popular blogs just to see what grabs everyone’s attention and usually on the top 100 or so there are some insightful religion and philosophy blogs. I do this from time to time, I suppose to see what other people are thinking, and there is also a part of me that wonders how people get on the top read blog list. While scrolling down the lists, I read some irrational concepts people have to justify double standards and poor relationships before I got to the interesting reads.

I find it interesting that there is a decently strong presence of atheistic themed blogs. Within their own context they seem to range between a rant about Christians or a challenge to beliefs that many Christians believe like Creationism or the sort. It takes a bit more scrolling down the list before I can find a well written blog of a living Christian. I wonder if we can gauge the popularity of such blogs as a growth in atheism/anti-Christian attitude. I find reading the same arguments and accusations against Christianity or Christians disheartening. There appears to be a constant supply of proclaiming Christians who do not live as we ought. At the same time, in the blogosphere, the ability to identify the Fruit as evidence of faith is rather impossible. It is particularly challenging knowing that there are many nominal Christians who are not differentiated from practicing Christians.

After reading most of the arguments against the existence of God I am anxious to read the other works that are counter/anti-religion. I know the God Delusion has been a big one for quite some time, I think it is on my future read list. Reading what the reasons against God are in a full essay format I find it that much easier to see the misconceptions and assumptions. In the point- counterpoint book I am reading I had to take a step back to look at the "Does God Exist?" debate. I know I have commented on debates in mass print or broadcasted before on the same topic but during the course of this one there was a new epiphany. I don't know why it has taken me so long to see this reason, after all scripture explains this same fact. In the public context of "Does God exist?" it is apparent Christians are at the very best paddling the canoe up a waterfall. It is not because we have weak arguments, lack evidence, or have poor rationale that it seems reasonable to reject our beliefs.

"Does God exist?" is too general of a question. It is perfect for the atheist because they can attack Thor as much as God. The presence of hundreds of different deities throughout the world allows a plethora of examples to reject. At the same time, the Christian must explain the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God in order to separate him from Allah, or Siddhartha. The separation that Christians must make and emphasize to show the difference of God versus the other gods puts a greater burden of proof that is so much so it can easily distract from the goal of the discussion.

Once the Christian has stated the characteristics of God the atheist can really go to town. So far I have found the rejection of God is not because of a lack of evidence for the God of Christianity but for the God of Christianity that the atheists want him to be. For instance, the atheist claims there are no good evidence for the existence of God. However, when the evidence is often presented the atheist rejects such evidence because it is not how they want their God (who doesn’t exist…) to do it.

For example, using the Problem of Evil to disprove God, the atheist claims there is too much pain and suffering at some level. Sometime it is a personal experience, sometimes it is the philosophical citizen of the world. When the Christian might try to explain that pain exists due to the presence of sin or free will, the atheist can respond that if God really was God then he could do it better or differently. This happens with every good argument for the existence of God. The Christian presents it, the atheist rejects it because they want it done a different way. Essentially it is a debate in which the atheist requires us to prove to them that their God exists. They have been rejecting the God who does not exist. It gets even better, often times, the atheist will put the burden of proof on Christians when the points from which they demand proof are contrary to orthodoxy. One example is something along the lines of withholding pain and suffering but still have a way in which the lessons from such pain and suffering can still be known, in the same way it was made known by experience.

The short sightedness of the atheistic arguments is a decent challenge to the Christians in this debate. Through reading this debate book I recognize the focus we must have ought to be on eternity, this cannot be forgotten. While the Christian view carries on for all eternity, so that the pain, suffering, evil (all justified with moral law) will be answered and solved, when the end of the road is the human lifespan such resolution cannot be fulfilled. Suppose someone rejects God because a bridge fell on someone they loved, or because they were repelled by the pain people were suffering from Hurricane Katrina. However, for those of us that know there is an eternal scale we view death, pain, and suffering with a different looking glass. Atheists want paradise/heaven on Earth while simultaneously rejecting the only being who has the potential to make it happen. They don't conceive that there is an afterlife or there is a greater purpose/meaning for life other than personal pleasure. It is not that our faith is irrational; it is that they don't like our rational.

The last point I noticed so far was that in order for many of the atheists to believe that God exists they must be able to fully comprehend and understand what God is doing and how he works. Essentially they want to be God and since that can be god in their own mind they don't want to admit it. The root of atheism as Ravi Zacharias writes is that people don't want to have to submit to anyone/thing, they reject the idea of faith and submission, not the evidence for the God that we believe. I reflect these thoughts with a heavy heart, on one side of me "ask, seek, and knock" comes to mind in which they must be willing to believe if they are going to be able to understand. I also look at the reasons Christ said he used parables. He will hide the truth from those not willing to accept it and will grant understanding to those who will. This seems so contrary to the way I would do it, to me it would make sense if all could see and understand, however, this might just be why I have to have faith. When there are those instances of "God, why do you do it that way?" I cannot get caught up on the why's and lose sight of what matters. Constantly reading apologetics that provide the intellectual response for Christianity there is a danger that I forsake God as the one who knows it all and become a modern Pharisee.