“Atheism and Judeo-Christian Belief and Outcomes”

“Atheism and Judeo-Christian Belief and Outcomes”

Recently in a discussion about the veracity of Christianity a comment was made about atheists and that it was secularism that is responsible for more death than all religions combined.  In response a comment was made something to the effect that, “You cannot lump all atheists together because there is a great difference in and among us.”

While only the most naïve would question the truth of the response, there came a further discussion.  You see the person defending atheism was very adept at dividing out all atheists while at the same time grouping all theists together.  Then as the argument progressed the theists would be labeled because of the excesses of a few.  

Among the arguments tendered was the notion that Theism in general and Judeo-Christian belief in particular was and is not a valid truth system because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other overreaches by “Christians.”  Thus the Christian “truth” system is invalid.  Of course no such criterion was applied to atheism.

So in the course of the discussion it became apparent that there were two different standards by which to evaluate belief systems.  The system embraced could be hospitably accepted despite its excesses while the other is disproved by similar excesses. 

However, while discounting a truth system based upon excesses may be valid and true, it is also legitimate to note that one can argue for the veracity of any overarching truth system by looking at general trends and outcomes.  For example while both atheism and theism can “take a bad rap” for the times in which they have devalued human life, there is a glowing difference and it is found in outcomes.

Travel from the destructive end of the scale to what have both systems contributed to the betterment of mankind.  Even a cursory reading of history (not revisionist history but genuine history) will show it is those who’ve embraced Judeo-Christian truth that have added to the quality of life for mankind in general and people in particular.

Those things that we assume and thus presume upon in the West like benevolent government, places that serve the sick and dying, and benevolent organizations etc. all had their start because of the Judeo-Christian truth ethic.  As well helping and service organizations in many cases had their start because of the Judeo-Christian truth paradigm. 

Look to science and medicine and one finds the same to be true.  Look to humanitarian organizations and one find that most of them come or at least had their start as faith based organizations.

So when one evaluated the claims of the atheist truth system in its multivariate sub-parts and Judeo-Christian truth system in its multivariate sub-parts there is one question that demands an answer.  It is not that of excesses and misdirected people for both systems have many.  However, it is this.  

"Generally speaking, which system has done the most good for humanity?"

“The Preponderance of Faith”

“The Preponderance of Faith”

Perhaps you've heard the statement "preponderance of the evidence."  The point of the following is that without 100% proof, there is a gap that is only filled by faith.  Thus, from the cold empiricist to the existentialist, faith is to be found in any and all systems of knowledge.

George H. Smith[1] in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God and writing of The Skepticism of Faith argues that skepticism in the study of the origins of knowledge will eventually lend aid and comfort to religious claims and turn against the atheist.  Quite a claim for a libertarian atheist.

The point is this.  For the one who is skeptical of the theist and who asserts that his claims of reality cannot be proven in total, then he is simply observing what is true of any and all roads to reality.  Both sides of the atheism-theism question to some degree must rely, not on the facts but upon his belief.  To rely upon one’s belief is to put trust in that belief—that is put faith in that belief.

Just to be clear, since atheism cannot be reliably proven, then such requires some degree of belief beyond what proof that may exist for the claim.  Therefore one can conclude that atheism requires faith.  So while the atheist points to the theist and joyfully demands proof, what he fails to see is that his own position is equally fragile.  Fragile because it cannot be completely and totally substantiated.

This holds true for the Rationalist, as there are matters that cannot be discerned through one’s thinking no matter how much intellectual prowess one might posses.  As well it holds true for the Empiricist for there are matters that cannot be scientifically proven nor explained no matter how much science is applied to the question.

Whether it be Naturalism, Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, or any of a number of other “isms” it is as it is in theism.  There simply is no iron clad, 100% verifiable way in which to prove the veracity of any of the aforementioned systems and any others that you might care to include in the discussion. 

The simple point is that without some degree of trust/faith, one cannot legitimately embrace any truth system.  So then, how does one comes to believe in this idea or that notion?  In its simple form, it is a matter of one’s choice.   What then do you choose to believe?

_____________________

[1] Author, editor, and contributor to numerous publications is an atheist and libertarian thinker.

"Truth or Consequences"

There is no safety in truth that is not genuine!  However, falsehood in its very degrees leads to destruction.  Beware of that which is not genuine truth.

We do well to remember that "genuine truth" does not change! No matter how ones spins it, rejects it, seeks to destroy it, and/or compromise it, genuine truth will in the end be there when the false has failed.  Genuine truth is not at the mercy of polls, opinions, the media, nor is it at the mercy of academia.

Not so with man's unproven opinions.  Take for example the matter Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and the whole notion of "global warming."  It was not too long ago that the climatologist were proposing "global cooling" and a coming ice age.  Then came "global warming."  Now we have "climate change."  The only inconvenient truth here is that the whole notion of man caused climate change is "junk science" to be sure.  How can I say that?  Consider the following.

Science--true science is built upon the idea that a discovery is characterized by at least two basic qualities.

First, it is stable, that is the scientific discovery does not change.  It can be a gateway to deeper understandings and truths but the basic theorem is stable and thus does not change.  

Second, the outcome can be validated by any scientist or laymen who cares to replicate the conditions of the original experiment.  

 "Climate change" meets neither criterion as when you remove "interpretation and opinion" from the discussion, there is little factual data.  Oh, I know, drilling through the strata of Antarctic ice, looking at tree rings etc. gives data, however such data is open to interpretation and thus is not purely factual.  Therefore it is not "genuine science" and in fact qualifies as "junk science."

Well, you might ask, "How is it that you are qualified to render this conclusion?"  The answer is quite simple.  When you look at the scientists that signed on to "climate change," you will notice that not many of them are any more qualified that I am since this is not their area of expertise.  Said another way, I am as qualified as they to discuss the veracity of this theory and I with as much expertise as they say that this is an illegitimate theory!

There is an underlying issue as well.  Consider the first part of the term, "man made."  Does it not speak to an arrogant view of man and his influence upon God's creation?  Does it not tacitly say that man's actions are greater in power than God's capacity to keep and maintain creation?

Well, you respond, I am an evolutionary atheist.  Then consider this.  The basic notions of evolutionary science (again "junk science") should encourage "climate change" since it creates an environment in which only the fit survive and thus progress further up the theorized evolutionary ladder.  Makes no sense to me why the evolutionist would not want this supposed "climate change."

"Climate change does make a difference.  There is an economic effect upon the individual and upon the economy in general.  Sure we should all be for clean air and clean water but this has gone way too far.  That brings us to this final point!

There is safety in genuine truth! Maybe that is the Genuine Inconvenient Truth!  When man individually and as a nation turns from God, there is a price to be paid and that price is that the view of God becomes distorted or all together absent.  Without the "God view" all truth becomes subjective and subject to the influences of prejudice, societal mores, bias, and results in chaos.

"The Inconvenience of God!"

Could one argue that atheism is a "religion" of convenience?  Religion?  Yes, it is so because it has all of the qualities of a religion—a common belief, doctrine, adherents, meetings, and activists.

Convenience? While there are many atheists with high moral standards, there are fewer with ethical standards, and many more who have come to embrace the belief because they find divinely established ethical standards to be inconvenient.  For them God is inconvenient, not inconceivable, just inconvenient.

These are those who understand that to believe in some form of God will require accompanying ethical behaviors.  For them one’s self pleasuring tendancies and other behaviors are inconvenienced by such ethical behaviors as God required and requires.  In that sense they are to be respected for at least they do not pretend something they are not--an argument often pointed at people of faith in their ethical/moral struggles.

Continuing that thought, at this point the athiest has company for there are those who believe in some form of God—a God that they have redefined to fit their moral proclivities.  In either case, it is much easier to redefine God or to rid one’s self of God than to rid one’s self of a penchant for various pleasures and conveniences that are outside of God’s standards.

The problem is that, just as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, there is internal evidence that has been “hard wired” into each person.  Such gives testimony to each that “there is a God and that God is there.”  However, when life style choices make an ethical God inconvenient, it is easier to intellectually get rid of God.

Then too, to defend the athiest’s position requires more argument and even more faith than to take the leap of faith necssary to decide to believe in God.  It is far more simple say, "God is!!!"  However, at that point the issue becomes, if God exists, what will He require?

An accompanying thought for those of faith is this.  "Since you believe God exists what does He require of you?"