Forgive me, but I don’t think I recall reading this earlier–what is your professional/educational background, out of curiosity? I think you mentioned once that you’re either an Aussie or Kiwi :).
I am only a family medical physician–thus, not much training beyond pre-med BS in Biology bachelor’s courses in genetics, biology, etc (the focus in med school was specifically on anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, etc). I certainly learn a lot here. If you’d rather not post here, that’s fine. Thank you.
No problem - I am a research scientist (mostly chemistry) and an Orthodox Christian. I have a longstanding interest in theology and philosophy of science.
1 Like
Thank you. Very interesting! I am intrigued by both areas–chemistry and Orthodox Christianity. I had considered an MD/PhD in organic chemistry after I had a very good undergrad teacher, and find the Orthodox history very interesting. Thank you for your input and time.
1 Like
@SuperBigV, if you have a chance would you tell us about your history? I know you were once a Christian, but I’m curious what made you interested in science and philosophy. It’s nice to get to know backgrounds. It even helps avoid generalizations! 
Faith is the only way anything is ever known. Logic can only take you from the premises you take on faith to equivalent conclusions. And even objective evidence requires taking a few premises on faith for this to establish anything. Thus faith is the foundation of ALL knowledge. This is not to say that all knowledge is the same. There is a difference in science but it take a bit more subtlety than what you propose here. Science is founded on an exceptional measure of honesty and objectivity which gives its findings an epistemological superiority, so that disagreement with its findings is unreasonable. Unlike the dominant methodology of rhetoric in most human activities, science requires you to test your hypothesis rather than find a way to prove it – therein lies the honesty of science. Then science gives you written procedures which anyone can follow to get the same result no matter what you believe – therein lies its objectivity.
BUT to call any of this knowledge still requires faith. You have to ASSUME there are no malign forces out there arranging the evidence to deceive us. You at least have to have the faith in the methodology of science enough to use it with some perseverance. And yet there is still this subtle difference that unlike religion, what you actually believe doesn’t matter in science, the written procedures still give the same result regardless.
But that is like saying… by putting one foot in front of the other you can go anywhere in the city. It is true, but somewhat irrelevant. It doesn’t mean walking will take you to the wrong place. Faith is only the beginning of knowledge not the end of it. Using logic to find the conclusions we get from the premises we start with is one of our selectors according to whether the conclusions are acceptable. Agreement with our experiences is another selector. Consistency with the scientific evidence is also very important.
1 Like
They profess faith in their own conclusions, even if it is only to conclude that they see no reason believe something. It is still a theological position chosen for subjective reasons.
I was in physics. By “Orthodox” are referring to Eastern Orthodoxy? I think Randy has assumed so. I agree with several of the theological positions of Eastern Orthodoxy, though I am more of a liberal evangelical.
1 Like
I’m sorry if that has been your experience. Most atheists I know resent it very much when Christian apologists badger them to believe as they do. So I don’t understand why they think it would be okay to badger Christians who retain their faith to lose it as they have. In both cases those doing the badgering cannot produce the positive evidence to support the positions they would like the other to accept. When you can’t produce the justification the other would require to adopt your position it would seem appropriate to tread more lightly and with more civility. Aggressive proponents on either side do not represent their positions in a positive manner from the other side’s perspective.
But I don’t think “professing an absence of faith” is the only alternative to being an aggressive anti-faith proponent, though many are happy to accept that description. Some of us just do not share faith in the same things you profess faith in, or at least don’t recognize it as being the same thing. It is also possible to have faith in some things other than God.
1 Like
My experience with colleagues and acquaintances who were either atheists or theists has been very positive, because I recognise the character and ethics they display; nor have any of us tried to badger each other. Yet at times we have indulged in vigorous discussions which have, imo, benefited all of us.
Yet if we refer to those who are represented by Dawkins and Co., my response has been to note they profess an absence of faith, and yet they make the mistake of conscripting science to further their propaganda. Obviously I disagree.
I am not evangelically inclined so I am not sympathetic to those who proselyte, so I am in complete agreement with you on:
I also understand that some “just do not share faith in the same things we profess faith in”, but I disagree with you on the way atheists discuss our belief in God.
It seems to me that our faith in God gets under the skin of some atheists, and I think it should not. The atheists I have personally met are not bothered by God and faith in Him.
I have been appalled and ashamed of the behavior of many of my fellow atheists online. So that does not surprise me. I try to understand it and the best I can come up with is they must have had difficult experiences with family or community and I think some felt betrayed by their communities when they could no longer fit in. But they sure do enjoy having a group to deride and ridicule every bit as much or more than whatever they might have gone through. If it were truly neutral disbelief the obsession that leads them to watch all the videos and read all the books just doesn’t make sense. I mean, if they truly feel religion is an archaic and destructive institution, why the anger at the people caught up in it? Where does the sense of entitlement and motivation come from to so callously dismiss the beliefs of so many adult human beings? I know many live in communities where they are greatly outnumbered, feeling alien or even outcast. I confess I don’t understand it, but I don’t like it. I’ve never read any of the books though I have looked at some of the videos people wanted to discuss. Sometimes they make sensible sounding points but it is easy to see they haven’t really grasped the other person’s actual viewpoint, and they’re just way too willing to chalk it up to ignorance and stupidity on the side of theists. If they really wanted to understand the thing (religion), they’d have to go about it very differently.
1 Like
I was born and grew up in the USSR, in a region what is now Ukraine. Both of my parents and grandparents were Evangelical Baptists.
I practically grew up in the Church. I knew the Bible early on. But due to the nature of Soviet Christianity at that time (i.e persecutions), many of the sermons emphasized God’s judgment. Judgment for the persecutors as well as Christians who don’t persist in the faith. I was just a young kid, but I learned about the unpardonable sin, and the need to repent of all sins. Not just asking for forgiveness, but to actually repent.
I immigrated to the US when I was a teen. Started studying the Bible for my self. One of the earliest doubts in my mind stemmed from the realization that the way out of Hell is not as cut and dried as the modern theology teaches. I found myself in a paradox. I was preaching in my church, I knew the Bible well, I was respected by the people in my church, but I was not sure of my salvation (at times), unsure of the doctrines. This went on for a few years and in time, I recognized that both, Arminianism and Calvinism can be firmly supported in the Scriptures. This realization led me to being opened to the idea that the whole religion can be man made. Keep in mind that this was not an easy path for me (similar to other ex-Christians I know). The path to atheism, ironically, was paved with fervent prayers, struggles, Bible readings, until I eventually gave up, considering the evidence. In other words, if God truly existed, and wanted me to know and understand the Bible correctly, he’d make it known to me.
I’m not as articulate as some of my other comrades. But if you’d like to better understand someone’s reason for atheism, you can check out Yuriy Stasyuk. He was a Pentecostal, but like me, he ran into difficulties with the Bible, which eventually led to his Atheism.
I wanted to make this post as short as possible. Feel free to ask or IM if you need more details
1 Like
I don’t disagree with you. As I type this, I’m sitting down, in faith that the support structure will not give out. So you are right on faith being important. However, there is a big difference between (1) believing that the chair will hold me, especially if there is a strong track record of the chair holding me previously and the chair not showing any cracks or structural damage and (2) believing in an invisible Deity who is directing and ordaining everything that happens.
Had my chair showed signs of structural damage, I would not be sitting in it. So it’s a faith rooted in evidence. Faith of the scientists is rooted on evidence. Unlike the religious faith, which is not rooted in evidence, but in the ancient claims.
Heb. 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
This is the difference between Atheists and Christians/Theists. We have faith in what we see and test, but religions require faith in what you do not see.
Thanks for sharing your story with us. It can be difficult and painful to share how we arrived at our most cherished beliefs.
I know you’re satisfied with the position you’ve arrived at, and it’s not my intent to try to talk you out of it. But I’m just wondering . . . has it occurred to you that maybe the kinds of questions you were taught to ask about God aren’t really the kinds of questions God wanted you to ask?
I’m a cataphatic mystic (and yes, I know all about the lack of belief in mysticism that most people have, so no need to rake me over the coals on that score, pretty please). I talk to God every day (and yes, I know all about the DSM-V, so no need to remind me about that, either). What I’ve learned about God through these conversations is that God has free will, God has emotions and feelings just like us, and God is continually talking to us about questions we don’t really want to hear the answers to.
I have faith in God, not because of what I don’t see but because of what I do see, do feel, do learn, and do experience. So although it may be important for some atheists to believe that all Christians/Theists only have faith in things we don’t see, such a generalization may not be supportable based on the facts. The entire quantum universe is built on fields we can’t see and don’t understand at all, but those fields seem to be quite real, and I’m happy they’re holding my chair together.
God bless,
Jen
2 Likes
I’m only generalizing based on my experience as a Christian, based on my Christian family’s experiences currently.
I’d be curious, if you don’t mind my asking, how do you know you are experiencing God and not something else that’s wholly contain within you/your mind?
Well, since I don’t believe in the invisible Deity you describe (controlling everything) your comparison would need a bit of adjustment in order to be applicable to me. I made the comparison between scientific and religious knowledge which is more to the point, where I explained that YES there is a difference indeed. Your example of the chair is personally amusing since I so recently had my faith in that regard disappointed to find myself deposited on the kitchen floor and that makes me reevaluate your comparison in another way. Risk is another important factor, for finding yourself on the floor isn’t a very big one – but then what is the risk when it comes to believing in God? Small risk is likely to suggest that one criticism of the belief in God is that it tends to be unfalsifiable.
That is incorrect. In fact, this very statement is an example of you putting faith in something you cannot see where I would doubt it because it has not been seen or tested. Sounds like something you would just like to believe. God is something we theists do see and test in a great variety of ways. Like I said before, there is a difference between science and religion but you need a bit more subtlety and care to nail down that difference correctly. But then… this probably doesn’t serve your purpose so well when you are talking to a Christian who is also a scientist, like I am.
As for Heb 11:1, once you clarify the difference between science and religion then it becomes rather difficult to make this passage applicable. Science also requires faith and not everything is science is seen with your eyes. But even when you go with Einstein’s famous saying that “religion without science is blind,” equating science with an extension of sight (as I do), it is a bit dubious to interpret Heb 11:1 by this. Even in religion we can also extend sight to the metaphorical and say that we see God in the living of our lives.
That is a club which includes a lot of Christians also. LOL Indeed I could say your embarrassment does not even come close to mine. But then I could argue that this is mostly just because the Christians (and theists more generally) are just so much more numerous.
1 Like
I already said that I care only for truth. But if something is unfalsifiable, then I think the person closest to the truth is the one who says… Lets suspend judgment until we have more evidence. Not the person who says…“There MUST be a God” or “There absolutely cannot be any Gods”.
My position is Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic means I don’t know. Atheist means I lack belief in a Gods. I don’t make a positive claim that there are no Gods.
Note: I have and do claim that a Christian God cannot exist based on the logical proof of contradiction. (i.e just as there can’t be a round square, there can’t be a loving God who created eternal Hell for those who disobey him, etc…).
Whereas I can be described as an Objectively Agnostic Christian – by “objectively agnostic,” I mean I don’t think objective knowledge of the existence of God is possible (I reject all proofs for the existence of God and routinely show why they do not work).
Ahhh! But then you are dealing with the rather wide spectrum of Christian beliefs which includes those like myself who do not believe that God created hell, let alone others who not even believe an eternal hell at all.
1 Like
I´m addressing this new posts later but one question to you Mitchell
I found this rather interesting since I saw you posting in the past that you believe that the devil exists. How is your view here? Care to elaborate?
(Wrong button, not addressed to you Vlad, obviously. Sorry)
Unlike the Universalists, I believe in the reality of hell because I see it in the world. But this is not something created by God but by people who seem to be addicted to evil, hatred and misery. Thus I see no reason at all to believe that hell is something created by God, because people are obviously quite capable of doing that themselves without any help from anyone. And I see every indication that rather than learning from what they have done, quite often they only get worse and worse. This is not to say that redemption is impossible, for some do turn away from the horror and seek something better.
If you read that I believe the devil exists then perhaps you should have kept reading, for I also say that I nevertheless do not believe in the devil. I credit him/it with existence only and not with anything else. Instead I insist that power and responsibility go hand in hand, and if you give responsibility to the devil for anything then you also give him power.
1 Like
@DoKo,I thought that hell’s (or some of our understanding of hell) has been set aside as punishment for the devil and his angels–so not associated with his own home :)?
I would have to read more on this, but the “gates of Hades” is actually not associated with Hell, if I understand it right; thus, Hell is the last place the Devil would want to go (I’m not totally clear on the identification of the devil, of note–I understand that Jews think of him as an accuser in Heaven, as in Job; but I’m thinking as far as interaction with us, there’s enough blame on my own side not to cast it on him, just to clarify).
Rethinking Hell is an interesting website I have to read more on. Maybe you can clarify for me too. thanks.
Sorry–I jumped in there and you were addressing @mitchellmckain; I’ll leave it up to you. I just found it interesting. thanks for the dialogue.