Tag Archives: God

Mentoring

What my relationship with God is like

3 Comments

I regularly take my non-Christian co-workers and friends out for lunch to check on how their worldviews are coming along, and last week a comment I made at the table seemed to really get one friend’s attention. (The last time I got his attention like this, I had said that the example of Jesus’ life is instructive for us because it shows that it is OK to suffer for doing the right thing, and that it is not God’s job to save you in this life. Life isn’t about happiness. It’s about suffering for your allegiance to God). I can always tell when I hit a nerve because the person repeats what I said back to me.

So anyway, this time I said “When it comes to God, there are only two kinds of people. The first kind wants a real relationship with the real God who is there, even if this involves self-denial, self-sacrifice, and suffering. The second kind doesn’t want a relationship with God – they want to be happy in this life and invent new standards of meaning and morality based on their personal preferences that justifies their selfishness.” The context was that I was talking about how I was changing my mother’s approach to religious questions.

So, here’s how a relationship with God might develop, based partly on my experiences:

  1. You start off as a non-Christian with no interest in God.
  2. You attend to your regular life first by studying, working, eating, sleeping, etc.. Eventually, your situation is secure and comfortable enough that you begin to ask yourself the big questions in life. Does God exist? Is morality real? What is the purpose if life?
  3. You take some of your free recreation time and try to investigate these questions. This would involve studying world religions, science and history to determine which religion best satisfies the laws of logic and the facts in the external world.
  4. You decide God exists because of the cosmological and moral arguments, and you decide that Jesus is authoritative because of the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.
  5. You realize you are in full rebellion against God and cannot hope to change this rebellion short of being “born again”, which would involve getting forgiveness and undergoing a radical re-prioritization of your life goals. You accept the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as payment for your sins.
  6. You scour the New Testament and theology books to find out more about what the character of God is really like, and you test everything you discover against the Bible, church history and the works of solid Christian scholars.
  7. You read about characters in the Bible like Caleb, Daniel, Joshua, Paul. You say to yourself “other people aren’t always happy when you stick up for God” and “God doesn’t always make everything work out for you in this life, when you obey him”.
  8. You start to get a feel for what God is like. There is no talking to God or hearing from God, or emotional highs during worship. You learn more by reading more about him and talk to people who are stronger Christians. You learn what he likes, what he doesn’t like. You begin to appreciate that God is different from you. You realize that God is trying to change you, which scares you a little. You say yes to God more and more, just because he is so interested in you, and because he is so intent on trying to change you. For some reason, his demands don’t seem to be too objectionable, and there is always forgiveness when you fail.
  9. You find that it is easier and easier to stick to moral rules in the New Testament, because of the sympathy you have for God. You are less and less interested in trying to achieve happiness in the here and now. Things you used to like doing don’t seem to be as interesting as things that you do as part of your relationship with God. You find that opportunities to do things relevant to your relationship with God become more frequent.
  10. You talk to non-Christians about God and realize that no one else is interested in whether God exists, or what he is like. You have less and less sympathy for other people and their selfish desire to be happy. You feel less and less pressure to change what you believe to make these other people comfortable – after all, they lost every argument with you since they have no arguments or evidence. You  wonder why other people don’t investigate these things rigorously, instead of just trying to be happy all the time. They are busy doing other things.
  11. Sometimes, the worldly success of non-Christians makes you feel inadequate. They have more time for getting ahead because they don’t take any time out for a relationship with God. But you stick with God anyway, and try to encourage these non-Christians to devote more time and effort to developing their worldview more carefully. You keep trying to love these other people, and tell them the truth with reasons and evidence, but the more they rebel against God, the more you find the doctrine of Hell is acceptable to you.
  12. You start making a long-term plan about something you want to achieve for God, e.g. – you plan to get two Ph.Ds in Physics and Philosophy from Stanford and Oxford, learn to debate like William Lane Craig, and defeat Richard Dawkins in a public debate, thus dealing atheism a blow from which it will never recover. (My actual plan is described here) This plan isn’t just dull stuff like following the ten commandments and other moral rules. This is different. This is you planning out something completely new. Your plan is consistent with Bible, but it goes beyond the rules. It’s not a private plan. It’s not meant to make you feel happy. It’s a public plan. It’s designed to be effective.
  13. You love your plan. You smile, laugh and whistle a lot everywhere you go because you are so excited about your plan. People think you are very happy, but you actually feel sad, lonely and worried about being silenced or persecuted by the secular left. The plan is a lot of work, and you could do a much better job of pursuing happiness if you just dropped the whole thing. But you don’t.
  14. Your entire family and most of your friends, including other Christians, don’t recognize or value your plan. The Church opposes you at every turn, thinking that Christianity is about ignoring apologetics and theology, and making non-Christians feel happy about their rebellion against God. You notice that not everyone approves of your priorities, but you keep going with your plan anyway.
  15. You test to see if God is interested in supporting your plan by taking some small steps and watching to see if you are successful. You are successful, but progress is very slow.
  16. You give up more and more of your happiness and selfishness as you work steadily on your plan. You face opposition from non-Christians who attack you in the academy and the workplace. You face opposition from fake Christians who vote for laws and policies that rob you of your wealth and your rights, including the rights of free speech and religious liberty. Everyone who knows you well likes you, but they don’t really seriously seek after God. People who don’t know know you well sometimes persecute you because they are offended by your disagreement with them.
  17. You only achieve a tiny measure of what you set out to do before dying.
  18. On the day of Judgment, you get a resurrection body and eternal life with your best Friend. The appearance of your resurrection body reflects the plan that you chose, and everyone in Heaven recognizes you at last. You meet all the people who helped you. And you meet all the people who you helped. It turns out that you had an impact far beyond what you had thought when you were alive.
  19. Every sacrifice that you made on Earth that seemed so terrible to bear is repaid by God many time over in ways you could never imagine.
  20. Finally, for the first time in your life, you are truly happy.

Does this sound like you? If it does, then we’re on the same battlefield. Put your back to mine and let’s stand together.

But the Consul’s brow was sad, and the Consul’s speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall, and darkly at the foe.
“Their van will be upon us before the bridge goes down;
And if they once might win the bridge, what hope to save the town?”

Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
“To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,

And for the tender mother who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses his baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus, that wrought the deed of shame?

Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul, with all the speed ye may!
I, with two more to help me, will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path, a thousand may well be stopped by three:
Now, who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?

Here are some lectures that helped me to form my views about the Christian life. My testimony is here.

Commentary

Can a meaningful standard of good and evil exist without a Designer?

3 Comments

Check out this post over at Tough Questions Answered.

Excerpt:

If you truly believe that there is evil in the world, then you must believe that there is good in the world as well.  We can’t know what is wrong unless we know what is right.  We can’t know a crooked line unless we know a straight line.  We can’t know injustice unless we know justice.

But if there is real good and real evil in the world, then there must be an ultimate standard, a measuring stick by which to judge goodness and badness.  This measuring stick must be perfect, so that all moral activity can be compared to it, just like determining the straightness of any line requires a perfectly straight line by which to compare.

My previous post on this issue is here. The best post I’ve ever done on the problems of evil and suffering is here.

Moral judgments make no sense if the universe is an accident – there is no way we ought to be. The best that atheists can do is personal preferences or cultural conventions. But that’s just taste and fashion, not right and wrong. Atheism is an amoral worldview.

Atheists: please comment in one of my posts that I linked above, and read the post first. I’m not going to debate the TQA post here.

Mentoring

How I respond to atheists who speculate about unobservable entities

2 Comments

I noticed a new comment to my article explaining how to argue for God from the fine-tuning of the universe.

The commenter wrote this:

Hey, atheist here. Just astounded by your characterisation of the atheist’s response. I’ve never heard any atheist use the argument that humans caused the fine tuning. It doesn’t make sense because humans would still have to exist in some now corrupted timeline where the universe wasn’t fine-tuned.

I have a whole post on my blog dedicated to this topic but I’ll summarise my main arguments.

[SNIP! See below for his 8 points]

Maybe you can integrate these arguments into your post and address them, instead of a straw man?

Mike

This is a pretty good comment, with only a little acceptable snark at the end. I hate it went people write loads and loads of stuff without citing any evidence.

And I wrote this back:

Thanks for your comment. You’ll note that in my piece I cited numerous scientific facts and produced an argument that was logically valid. Now let’s take a look at what you wrote.

And here’s how I replied to his 8 points.

“1. Possibility of a multiverse.”

1) This is a speculation with no scientific evidence. Notice how I appeal to an experimental particle physicist for my conclusion.

“2. Possibility of an oscillating universe”

2) This has been disproved theoretically and observationally. Notice how I cite research papers that do not merely speculate, but are based on observations.

“3. The Vast (to use Dennett’s terminology) majority of the universe does not contain life, so to claim that life is its purpose is merely superimposing your own subjective judgement onto it.

3) This is speculation about God’s motives. You are not in a position to dictate to God how he would have accomplished his goals. If you would like to listen to William Lane Craig speak on these scientific arguments, and listen to Dennett’s LAME response, click here.

“4. Related to 3. Clearly the universe is fine-tuned to make hydrogen, since that is the most abundant substance in the universe. Life seems to be fairly far down in the priorities of the universe. Of course I’m (half) joking, but there is no reason why one natural phenomenon needs a fine tuner any more than any other.”

4) This is speculation about God’s motives. You can feel free to joke about the evidence for and against God. I don’t joke about these issues – I prefer to cite evidence.

“5. The argument flauts its own premises by posing the existence of a creator which doesn’t need a fine-tuned universe. So either the premise is wrong, or we have an infinite regress of fine-tuners.”

5) Fine-tuning is an example of intelligent design such that a selection from a field of possibilities corresponds to an independently specified pattern. I.e. – the subset of functional proteins compared to the set of possible sequences of amino acids. God is not composed of parts so is not fine-tuned.

“6. We have no idea if these constants are even capable of changing. To state that they have been fine tuned without this information is nothing more than speculation.”

6) This is more speculation. Don’t make arguments based on what “we” don’t know. I make arguments based on what we do know. You do the same.

“7. It could be that the state of the universe is unlikely, but not as unlikely as the existence of a fine-tuner. In this case it would just be a big coincidence.”

7) “It could be…” It could be that monkeys will fly out of my butt. Stop speculating about things we cannot know. Let’s see your argument, and the peer-reviewed data to back it up. This is not a game.

“8. Even if the fine-tuning argument were valid, it says nothing about the type of creator that exists, so to go from this deist creator to the Christian God is a huge leap.”

8) The argument is not meant to prove the Christian God. The argument, taken together with a bunch of other scientific arguments, is meant to prove a Creator and Designer of the universe. To prove Christian theism, you make a case for the resurrection and then debate it in public in the university. And then you respond to philosophical objections, such as evil, suffering and the hiddenness of God.

I thought it was a useful example of how to ask people for arguments and evidence, and not take a speculation for an argument.

I find that atheists speculate a lot about unobservable entities in order to escape from good scientific arguments. They speculate about hyper-universes to explain the big bang. They speculate about a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning. They speculate about aliens seeding Earth with life to explain the origin of life. They speculate about as-yet-undiscovered precursor fossils to explain the Cambrian explosion. They speculate about as-yet-undiscovered developmental pathways that use co-option to get around irreducible complexity. And on, and on, and on.

And that suggests to me a question. What sense does it make to build an entire worldview on speculations about things you cannot observe? Or is atheism not about truth, then, but instead about thinking that you are better than other people and throwing off the demands of morality? If the truth is that God exists and that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, then why try to dance around it using speculations? What possible benefit could there be, ultimately, to having blind faith in a religion just to pursue pleasure?

My entire series on how moral values and moral duties cannot be grounded rationally on atheism is here.