Response to “Letters from Rosebud”

This post is a response to Melany at Letters from Rosebud. The comment thread can be found here.

 
Hi! Thanks for responding Melany. Here is my response to your previous comment:

 
"Phaedrus, As a Christian, I am thankful to have a faith that not only allows questions, but encourages them, and offers proofs."

 
-    Awesome!

 
"I believe in God because of the evidence of His intricate Creation; the reliability, cohesion, and wisdom of His Word; and the experience of His working in my own life."

 

-    Okay, but you realize you are referencing "him" a lot. I'm assuming you are referencing the Christian god. How do you come to know his "word," and why is it credible? What makes your specific god (out of all other possible conceptions of god) the most legitimate? I'm asking this because you make it specific by referencing "his word".

 
"I believe the Bible because it has yet to be proven wrong- historically, logically, or philosophically. And it is in seeking, in believing,"

 

- Well before I present you with a list of evidence in complete opposition to this claim, why do you understand this to be the case? There is a huge amount of history and archeological evidence that does not agree with the bible (there is no archeological evidence that jews were ever in egypt, or of the moses traverse for example). There are many competing scientific positions whose evidence contradict the bible. Logically, well.. let's get back to that (I am a philosophy major and don't want to get carried away). Philosophically you cannot disprove or prove anything with absolute certainty, but the school of thought I adhere to argues that we can test our beliefs beyond "reasonable" doubt.

 
"…that God reveals Himself through His Word, His Spirit "bearing witness with our spirit," something that is very difficult to measure or explain."

 

- If God reveals himself (gives legitimate evidence of his existence, love, purpose, etc.) through his word, and "his word" is "very difficult to measure or explain," then how do you come to know or explain it?

 

"When it comes to the third question, I disagree with the way that you have framed the question. The fault must always lie, not in the Bible's communication, but in our understanding. One cannot deny that people have twisted the Bible's message, seeking to put the power and authority of the Word of God behind their own selfish ambitions or unjust aims. I do not hold them excused, but rather find that they will be accountable to God, who will deal severely with the black mark that they have put upon His Name and His Word."

 

- Hmm.. No offence, but to give you context I hear this response a lot. Why can't the bible communicate a clear message to its followers? Why are there many religions fighting each other? The answer is usually: because they fail to understand the message. And not just that message, the "correct" message, whatever that is... Which one? Which translation? Well clearly some people believe they understand the message, as it seems you might. Once you have a firm grasp on that message, should you act on it? What if it compels one to act violently in the name of faith? Also, the bible justifies many selfish and unjust aims (I can provide references if you'd like).

 
"However, you do an injustice to the Bible and to your own argument when you claim that it's message is unclear, and then give only negative examples of it's contorted or distorted application. From your examples, one might draw the conclusion that the Bible's message is not ambiguous, as you have described, but rather of a uniformly destructive nature."

 

- I've read the bible. I respect its impact on culture, but I do not believe I'm doing it an injustice (at least not yet, lol). However, the bible's *many* messages I would say are ambiguous, but some are very clear and both necessarily destructive (I came not to send peace, but a sword) and necessarily beneficial (blessed are the peacemakers).

- There are clear problems that if you've read the bible from beginning to end are difficult to ignore, but we can come back to that. How ought we to judge the bible or any holy text as "good" or "most likely true"? How do we judge that? Is it by how many prayers are answered? How many followers it has? How eloquently it is written? Do we judge it by who read it before us (our parents, and our parents-parents)? Do we judge it by how many lives it saved? Or do we judge it by the damage it has caused historically versus the good it has done? What has it contributed to medicine? What has it contributed to our knowledge of the world? Has it progressed civilization forward, or hindered its advancement?

 
"You fail to acknowledge that Christianity, based upon the teaching of the Bible, has been often credited as a force for good in the world, motivating much charitable giving and sacrificial service. As an atheist (I presume), you might be interested in this article from the London Times, written by a fellow atheist who is convinced that Christianity is good for Africa:"

 

- You are right that Christianity has been credited as force for good, but as with many other religions, this credit as a force for good is derived mostly by its own followers and theologians.

- I've read Parris' article but his real argument isn't that Africa "needs god" in the literal sense. He's being clever. He thinks impoverished parts of Africa could seriously benefit with active missionaries because basically there's no central government to promote healthcare, public education, and everything else. What he's saying about Christianity in general is that it would be a danger to remove it from the equation because Africans need a belief system of some kind. But Parris would still believe Christianity to be false. And that's why I wouldn't promote it as an atheist. One shouldn't give people false hope in a false belief (especially if you believe it to be false or do not know for sure).

 
"Yes, I have questioned my faith. But I have found better reasons for questioning elsewhere"

 

- So instead of continuing to question your faith you started questioning things that compete with it? Why don't ALL things you experience disserve the same degree of healthy skepticism?

 
"How did the world come to be?"

 

- well according to the evidence we have today, I contend that the big bang is currently the strongest theory. We can talk about that if you wish. But I believe our earth is the result of nature, just like everything else in the universe. We are ultimately a result of the laws of nature. :)

 
"How does a godless society function?"

 

- Assuming already that it couldn't? Well can't a society that doesn't believe in god believe in human dignity? Can't they create a justice system based on cooperation and peace? Our society functions with a diversity of believers and non-believers of many faiths and political philosophies, but our system operates in a functional and surprisingly secular fashion.