Defining Christian Faith (my first sermon)

“Defining Christian Faith”
My name is Scott Starr, I am a life long member of the Del City Church of Christ… some of you have known me my whole life and others of you might not know me yet. I was baptized right here at the age of ten – that would have been 1974 or 75.
. I lived for several years in Texas and prior to that I lived for several years here in town- but shall we say on the wide path- apart from the Lord…
. So, one might be able to say that for several years in my adult life I let my “faith” slip… At 10 , things were simple- I knew I wanted to be a good boy, I knew I believed in God and wanted to please him and I believed that the only way I could do that was to believe on Jesus Christ as the son of God and to follow in his ways…. When I got a little older, things seemed to get more complicated… and because my faith had never fully developed I lapsed… Now, it could be said that I have rediscovered my faith. As you might imagine, I have spent a great deal of time studying, considering and asking- what is faith anyways? How can faith help or save me- how can it fix my broken life? The ideas that follow are not necessarily my ideas- I’d like to take credit for them- but I am simply not smart enough to figure out some of these things on my own- but, I can read…
For most of my life I have had a sort of sketchy, unsure working definition of faith. Not only that, in my time walking the wide path of the world- and also since I started to fight my way back home to God- I have discovered that MANY people- not only the irreligious, the skeptics and unbelievers but also MANY of our fellow Christians have a sketchy, not well articulated definition of what faith is. There IS a distinction between worldly faith and Biblical faith…

Tonight we are going to nail down what biblical faith is… that is the title of this sermon, “Defining Biblical Faith”.

Brethren, we need to have a clear, functional, working definition of Biblical faith if we are to have any hope that living as a Christian is going to help us through the trials of this life and into the life eternal with God- also we need to be able to articulate our faith, our definition of faith to others if we have any hope of carrying out the great commission and evangelizing our fellow man.
Hebrews chapter 11 is known as the faith chapter of the Bible- we will spend some time looking at that chapter in a bit- Hebrews 11:6 tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God-
One of the things that made me aware of my own insufficient, sketchy ideas of what faith, Biblical faith, is was a documentary film I saw a couple of years ago. This film was made by some avowed atheists- worse still the creator of this film was a former Christian that had attended a private Christian school as a youth. He now considers himself a “recovering former Christian”. The film was entitled “The God Who Wasn’t There”. Many of you may not be aware of this but there is a social movement out there known as the New atheism- they are fiercely militaristic- as in aggressively evangelistic- this may not be a threat to a many of you as older mature believers- but they are coming after your children or grandchildren- there is no doubt.

Now, the opening sequences of this film, “The God Who Wasn’t There”, shows some impromptu questions posed at Christians or believers in God who were coming out of Christian concerts or movies like “The Passion of Christ” or even out of a megachurch. Undoubtedly the footage was carefully selected and edited to make the believers look as silly as possible. The end product was a success on that score.
Most of these Christians, these “shiny, happy people’” as they were described in the film when asked why do you believe in this God character this omniscient, omni benevolent God that micromanages everything on earth at once including our own personal affairs- stammer like deer in the headlights and say in one way or another, “well, it’s faith- I believe in God because I have faith.”
The questioners push one or two people further than that, saying, “I don’t understand, what does that mean? It doesn’t make sense to say you believe because you have faith- aren’t you saying essentially that you believe because you believe….what evidence do you really have that the universe works this way
There is no reason that mature Christian believers should not be able to deal with questions like this…When I saw this I was offended
Typically, the world will use the old straw man tactic
C.S. Lewis made point in his writings that unbelievers like to construct this sort of imaginary “straw man” version of Christianity that is suitable for a six year old- and hack away but then do not do nearly as well when facing a well instructed adult of mature faith. After watching this travesty of a movie- I decided that I wanted to be the well-instructed, faithful adult if I ever had a confrontation like this
Let me say that the only reason I even watched a movie like this is because I have never been afraid of questions- of even the toughest questions to the things I believe whether its opinions, politics, the way I do things in my personal or work life or ESPECIALLY with regards to my faith or religious beliefs- Ether real faith or a belief in something, if it is real, it can withstand the most rigorous of Questioning and challenges-
questions are opportunities to learn
One of the things I learned is that the notion that Christianity is based on a “leap of faith”, a suspension of disbelief like you put on when you go to see a movie like Star Wars or Batman, rather than an intellectual commitment of mind and soul to God is widespread in today’s culture.
One of the other problems with the concept of faith, as it is conceived of by many, is there is no clear distinction between attitude management techniques and what is purely Biblical faith or supernatural thinking if you will. Managing our attitudes is in fact very important- even essential to be an effective Christian, spiritual warrior or even just a good person. "Be positive" motivational techniques, however, are not in themselves keys to releasing the supernatural power of God. The supernatural peace of God which comes from his tangible presence is able to do FAR more than a peace that comes from attitude management.
The Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 3, a prayer: 14For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
So according to what is said here starting in verse 17 that Christ comes to dwell in your heart which in turn is they key is through which we come to know the love that passes all understanding and the fullness of God.
Let’s think about that for a second: “love that passes all understanding and the fullness of God.”
This is a pretty mature audience so I am going to assume that all or most of you know that love- true love- is much more than just a feeling
“The fullness of God” is much more than just a feeling too… and so then, Faith is not just a feeling either.
Again- WHAT IS faith then?
Alexander Campbell, one of Christianity’s great thinkers and also one of the founder’s of the Christian restoration movement that led to what we know as The Church of Christ defines it this way:
“ An act of judgment, induced by evidence that can be weighed by universal reason and involving the active cooperation of the will of persons with the free grace of God.”
That sounds like a
HALLMARK CARD OR PLAQUE doesn’t it? I can read it and understand it but it’s not necessarily something you’d walk around with on the tip of your tongue…
Lets break it down precisely. The good news is that we don’t have to re-invent the wheel here. These questions about the definitions have been worked out for centuries if we can only find the time to study them…
The Christian Reformers sought to distinguish true faith from false faith. The saying sola fide (justification by faith alone) demanded that they define faith in a precise manner.
Starting with Luther and developed further by others, the understanding of faith was expressed in three separate yet vitally connected aspects: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.
1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word content. Faith, according to the Reformers must have content. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave” for example, is a necessary information base that Christians must have.
2. Assensus: This is the assent or confidence that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convicted that it is indeed true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,” assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”
But these two alone are not enough according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains.
3. Fiducia: This is the “resting”in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.” We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.
NOW when I read this- all the talk about faith started to make some sense-
NOW let’s look at Hebrews 11- the chapter that is called the faith chapter;
Hebrews 11:1-3 (Amplified)
1 NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].
2 For by [faith--[b]trust and holy fervor born of faith] the men of old had divine testimony borne to them and obtained a good report.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible.
Without going into a long rant about Christian apologetics- let us just say that us faithful believers have a solid case concerning the existence of God and the life and times and resurrection of Jesus Christ- and we need not just say- I believe it because I want to believe it- our faith is based on concrete reasoning and evidence.
I once heard Paul Harvey say… If a person can look at all the beauty and harmony and complexity and interdependence and calibration in the world or the cosmos and rule out the possibility of a Creator- a God- then they really have to come up with an unbelievable explanation.
We understand now what faith is- but how do we practice it?
1. Know God- you must be convicted that he is real and then commit to a relationship with him as guided by scripture
2. Seek God’s will
3. Surrender to God’s will
4. Abandon self will
5. Actively pursue “supernatural thinking”
To be humble or meek means to accept what God ordains or commands and to seek help and or guidance from Him rather than trusting in one’s own intelligence or abilities. This does not mean a passive tolerance of injustice (especially towards others), but a reliance on God for vindication and a refusal to retaliate when insulted. The humble and/or meek person is convinced that God’s ways are good, so he neither disputes nor resists what God sends. The humble person does not have a low opinion of themselves- they are not occupied with self at all. Because they trust God’s goodness and control over situations, the meek person does not have to worry about their self interests or about self preservation or self improvement because they have turned over the lordship of their lives to God thru Christ.
Full reliance on God for strength to overcome our unrighteous character is the only way we can become the excellent kind of people God desires.
Examples of faith that include complete trust;
Luke 7 about the centurion who was willing to believe that Jesus could heal a loyal and trusted servant who was near death. The centurion told Jesus, “Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.”3
In response to the centurion, Jesus turned to the crowd that was following Him and said, “I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.”4 Jesus seemed to be saying that “great faith” was simply taking Him at His word.
Taking God at His Word
After reading and rereading the passage, with all its references to the phrase “by faith,” I began to see that all the people mentioned had one thing in common: No matter whom the writer of Hebrews was talking about, each person had simply taken God at His word and obeyed His command. And they were remembered for their faith.
Regardless of circumstances, despite arguments of logic and reason, and regardless of how he or she felt, each person mentioned in Hebrews 11 believed God and His word and chose to be obedient.
Hebrews 11 closes out with these verses:
32 How much more do I need to say? It would take too long to recount the stories of the faith of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and all the prophets. 33 By faith these people overthrew kingdoms, ruled with justice, and received what God had promised them. They shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the flames of fire, and escaped death by the edge of the sword. Their weakness was turned to strength. They became strong in battle and put whole armies to flight. 35 Women received their loved ones back again from death.
But others were tortured, refusing to turn from God in order to be set free. They placed their hope in a better life after the resurrection. 36 Some were jeered at, and their backs were cut open with whips. Others were chained in prisons. 37 Some died by stoning, some were sawed in half,[d] and others were killed with the sword. Some went about wearing skins of sheep and goats, destitute and oppressed and mistreated. 38 They were too good for this world, wandering over deserts and mountains, hiding in caves and holes in the ground.
39 All these people earned a good reputation because of their faith, yet none of them received all that God had promised. 40 For God had something better in mind for us, so that they would not reach perfection without us.
If Luke 7 and Hebrews 11 illustrate great faith, is there a passage that illustrates a lack of faith?
In Mark 4 Initially, the Apostles took Jesus at His word, got into a boat with Him, and headed across the sea. But when a storm arose, they grew fearful. When Jesus asked them, “How is it that you have no faith?”8 He could just as easily have said, “Why are you not taking Me at My word?”
I have always loved the first verse of Mark 5: “And they came to the other side of the sea.” Jesus’ word proved to be true.
Faith is taking God at His word.
Unfaithfulness is not taking him at his word.
We have also established that it is really beyond human capacity to live life faithfully- we can really only be faithful by totally surrendering to God and allowing his spirit, The holy Spirit, to work in us- we cannot will ourselves to be faithful- we surrender to god and he cultivates faithfulness in our spirits.
Having said that- there are ways we can detect God's unction in our lives. We have what is called "twofold assurance":


1. Our hearts assure us (conscience)

2. The Holy Spirit within us- God’s Spirit working in our own Spirit
In the New Testament there are 30 references to conscience. The Greek word for conscience is suneidesis which is defined as an abiding consciousness whose nature it is to bear inner witness to one's own conduct in a moral sense. It is self awareness and God awareness.
Often people think of conscience as an afterthought, a twinge of guilt or remorse after the fact. However, conscience is a moral compass that is designed primarily for PREVENTION. As stated, in this sense, being out of touch with conscience and/or God can be disastrous for people, people groups or entire societies or civilizations.
The goal then is to harmonize, inasmuch as we are able, our consciences according to what God ordains as right and/or wrong.
There are three ways in which this is accomplished:

1. reproof and correction- we have to learn to receive correction from trusted, spiritual, strategic relationships.

2. sincere repentance- we must embrace a re calibrated, redefined consciousness and lifestyle of repentance.

3. Faith and comprehension- in the saving power of Christ and the raw power and genius of modeling our lives on his example. This includes understanding the aforementioned distinction between attitude management and or psychological crutches and the supernatural peace and tangible presence of God in one's life and/or mind.
Finally, There are six ways for a person to find or tap into supernatural inner strength and wisdom by FINE TUNING THE CONSCIENCE:

1. Fight your way out of a siege- don't lose heart.

2. Find the joy of camaraderie- cultivate strategic relationships.

3. Maintain ranks in the face of battle- in the midst of trials and triumphs alike, continue to keep the commandments of God.

4. Remember the BIG picture- focus on the glory of God even during hardships and always remember that the real enemy is not flesh but the forces of darkness in the spiritual realm.


5. Use the power of consistent focus- always remember the goal... to maintain righteousness and make it to the Heavenly Kingdom of God.

6. Stay connected to the source of joy- maintain an intense prayer life and communion with God... without this the vision and all the rest begins to fade.
Invitation:
if you are questioning your faith – struggling with issues of faith or if you have people in your life are struggling with it or dampening your own faith…
Or if you have not yet begun your journey of faith or made a commitment to God but right now feel the urge to do so come up and share your heart or your woes with us and we’ll pray on it together- come on down as we stand and sing.

O, My God- The police

I always thought of this tune as an ardent prayer... particularly in my days of really seeking God and thirsting for answers. Now that I have worked out many of the answers I always desired- I find that the thirst for God is still there- and I still pray for the space between us to be filled.

I dedicate this one to my friend David.

Lyrics:

Everyone I know is lonely
And God is so far away,
And my heart belongs to no one,
So now sometimes I pray
Please take the space between us
And fill it up some way.
Take the space between us
And fill it up some way.

Oh my God you take the biscuit
Treating me this way
Expecting me to treat you well
No matter what you say.
How can I turn the other cheek
It's black and bruised and torn
I've been waiting
Since the day that I was born.


Take the space between us
And fill it up some way.
Take the space between us
And fill it up some way.

The fat man in his garden
The thin man at his gate
My God you must be sleeping
Wake up, it's much too late.

Take the space between us
And fill it up some way.
Take the space between us
And fill it up some way.

Do I have to tell the story
Of a thousand rainy days?
Since we first met,
It's a big enough umbrella
But it's always me that ends up getting wet.

David Robertson Takes On Richard Dawkins On Morality

David Robertson- The Dawkins Letters- Response to The God Delusion

On Secular Fundamentalism- Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges, who went to seminary at Harvard Divinity School, is the author of “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.” This essay is adapted from the book, which was inspired in part by Hedges’ debate with Sam Harris.

Chris Hedges' Columns

The battle under way in America is not a battle between religion and science. It is a battle between religious and secular fundamentalists. It is a battle between two groups intoxicated with the utopian and magical belief that humankind can perfect itself and master its destiny.
We live in an age of faith. We are assured we are advancing as a species toward a world that will be made perfect by reason, technology, science or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Evil can be eradicated. War has been declared on nebulous forces or cultures that stand as impediments to progress. Religion, if you are secular, is blamed for genocide, injustice, persecution, backwardness and intellectual and sexual repression. Secular humanism, if you are born again, is branded as a tool of Satan.

The folly of humankind, however, is pervasive. It infects all human endeavors. It has not exempted itself from institutional religion or the cult of science and reason. The greatest danger that besets us does not come from believers or atheists. It comes from those who, under the guise of religion, science or reason, imagine that we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species.

Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves. There is nothing in science or human history or human nature to support this idea. Human individuals can make moral advances, as can human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal and collective histories are not linear. We alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness. We can move forward materially, but we do not move forward morally. The belief in collective moral advancement ignores the endemic flaws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history. This belief in inevitable moral progress, whether it comes in secular or religious form, is magical thinking. The secular version of this myth peddles fables no less fantastic, and no less delusional, than those preached from many church pulpits.

The word utopia was coined by Thomas More in 1516 from the Greek words for no and place. To be a utopian, to live for the creation of a fantastic and unreal world, was to live in no place, to remove oneself from reality. It is only by building an ethic based on reality, one that takes into account the dangers and limits of human nature and human power, that we can begin to adjust our behavior to cope with social and political problems. All utopian schemes of impossible advances and glorious conclusions end in moral squalor, criminality and fanaticism.

The current “war on terror” by the United States is a utopian vision. It is being fought so that evil can be violently uprooted. Its proponents promise a world that will become “reasonable,” a “civil” world ruled by the “rational” forces of global capitalism. Those who support the “war on terror” speak as if victory in any tangible sense is possible. This noble vision of a world in harmony is used to turn us into criminals, beasts who carry out needless murder and torture in Iraq and our offshore penal colonies in the name of human progress.

The desire for emancipation, universal happiness and prosperity has a seductive pull on the human imagination. It preoccupied the early church, which was infused with exclusivist, utopian sects. We are comforted by the thought that we progress morally as a species. We want things to get better. We want to believe we are moving forward. This hope is more reassuring than reality. But all the signs in our present world point to a coming anarchy, a massive dislocation of populations that will result from ecological devastation and climate change, multiple pollutions, the weight of overpopulation and wars fought over dwindling natural resources. Science, which should be used to address these looming disasters, has largely become a tool of corporations that seek not to protect us but make a profit and stimulate the economy. New technologies that are potentially threatening, such as genetically modified organisms and nanotechnologies, are being unleashed with no understanding of the impact on the biosphere. The global population is expected to jump from about 2 billion in 1930 to 8 or 9 billion in the mid-21st century, and this means that if growth is left unchecked we will no longer be able to sustain ourselves, especially as nations such as China seek the consumption levels of the industrialized nations in Europe and North America. Nearly two-thirds of the life-support services provided to us by nature are already in precipitous decline worldwide. The old wars of conquest, expansion and exploitation will be replaced by wars fought for the basic necessities of air, food, sustainable living conditions and water. And as we race toward this catastrophe, scientists continue to make discoveries, set these discoveries upon us and walk away from the impact.

The belief that science and reason will save us makes it possible to ignore or minimize these looming catastrophes. We drift toward disaster with the comforting thought that the god of science will intervene on our behalf. It is dispiriting to live in a world where things are not moving forward and will most probably get worse. We prefer to believe that we are the culmination of a process, the end result of centuries of human advancement, rather than creatures trapped in the irrevocable limitations and blunders of human nature. The idea of inevitable progress gives us comfort in times of turmoil. It allows us to place ourselves at the center of creation, to exalt ourselves above others. It translates our narrow self-interest into a universal good. But it is morally irresponsible. It permits us to avert our eyes from reality and place our hopes in an absurdist faith.

The belief that rational and quantifiable disciplines such as science can be used to perfect human society is no less absurd than a belief in magic, angels and divine intervention. Scientific methods, part of the process of changing the material world, are nearly useless in the nebulous world of politics, ideas, values and ethics. But the belief in the possibility of collective moral progress, in our ability to advance as a species spiritually and ethically, is seductive. It is what has doomed populations in the past that have chased after impossible dreams, and it threatens to doom us again. It is, at its core, the enticement that we can be more than human, that we can become gods.

We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God. We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest. The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility or the illusion that the human species makes moral advances along with the material advances in science and technology. To turn away from God is harmless. Saints have been trying to do it for centuries. To turn away from sin is catastrophic. Religious fundamentalists, who believe they know and can carry out the will of God, disregard their severe human limitations. They act as if they are free from sin. The secular utopians from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to Daniel Dennett to Christopher Hitchens have also forgotten they are human. Both they and religious fundamentalists peddle absolutes. Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication.

The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected, that we are moving throughout history toward a glorious culmination, is malformed theology. It permits wild, eschatological visions to be built under religious or secular banners. It is this belief that is dangerous. And it colors the thought of the new crop of atheist writers. They will tell us what is right and wrong, not in the eyes of God, but according to the purity of the rational mind. They too seek to destroy those who do not conform to their vision. They too wrap their intolerance in Enlightenment virtues.

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” Sam Harris writes. “This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.”

Any form of knowledge that claims to be absolute ceases to be knowledge. It is a form of faith. Harris and the other atheist authors mistake a tiny subset of criminals and terrorists for 1 billion Muslims. They justify the unjustifiable in the name of civilization. The passions of these atheists, hidden under the jargon of reason and science, are as bankrupt as the passions of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists who sanctify mass slaughter in the name of their utopia. Religious fundamentalists pervert and distort religion to serve their own fears and self-aggrandizement. Atheists do the same with science and reason. These two groups peddle the myth that we can conquer human nature, overcome our imperfections and build the perfect society.

These atheists and Christian radicals have built squalid little belief systems that are in the service of themselves and their own power. They urge us forward into a nonreality-based world, one where force and violence, where self-exaltation and blind nationalism, are an unquestioned good. They seek to make us afraid of what we do not know or understand. They use this fear to justify cruelty and war. They ask us to kneel before little idols that look and act like them, telling us that one day, if we trust enough in God or reason, we will have everything we desire.

We must accept the severe limitations of being human. We must face reality, a reality which in the coming decades is going to be bleak and difficult. Those who are blinded by utopian visions inevitably turn to force to make their impossible dreams and their noble ideals real. They believe that the ends, no matter how barbaric, justify the means. Utopian ideologues, armed with the technology and mechanisms of industrial slaughter, have killed tens of millions of people over the last century. They ask us to inflict suffering and death in the name of virtue and truth. The atheists, in the end, offer us a new version of an old and dangerous faith. It is one we have seen before. It is one we must fight.

Who created God?

Who created God? Where did He come from? This is a question that was introduced two posts back in;

A question to atheists: Could the universe just pop into being?

The question was:

"I have seen the question posed on this series of clips on Youtube,

"Ok Then, When did God come into existence? Did he just "pop" into the universe as well, Or just has he, "just always been"? Theists have the same flaw, just one step back. I personally think that there is no God but at this time, humans cannot possibly perceive this depth of thought, we are not yet advanced enough to understand it."

* I capitalized God in this quote where the author did not.

What sayeth thee? how do you handle this question as a believer or non- believer?"

On the Existence of God- William Lane Craig

If you can look at the complexity, beauty, harmony, purpose, intelligence and morality in the universe- as well as that anything whatsoever exists- and eliminate the possibility of God- then you really have to come up with something unbelievable.

A question to atheists: Could the universe just pop into being?

Einstein and the Mind of God

check out Einstein and the Mind of God HERE.

The Dawkins Delusion

The Dawkins Delusion

By Alister McGrath, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2007.

An Oxford theologian contends that the aggressive rhetoric of Richard Dawkins' books masks a deep insecurity about the public credibility of atheism.

Alister McGrath, a biochemist and Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, may be Richard Dawkins' most prominent critic. As the author of "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life," he was interviewed extensively for Dawkins' recent documentary, "The Root of All Evil." Not a frame of these interviews made it into the final edit. Below is a slightly modified version of remarks delivered by McGrath in response to Dawkins' latest book, "The God Delusion."

The God Delusion has established Dawkins as the world's most high-profile atheist polemicist, who directs a withering criticism against every form of religion. He is out to convert his readers. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Not that he thinks that this is particularly likely; after all, he suggests, "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument." Along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, Dawkins directs a ferocious trade of criticism against religion in general and Christianity in particular. In this article, I propose to explore two major questions. First, why this sudden outburst of aggression? Second, how reliable are Dawkins' criticisms of religion?

Let's begin by looking at the first question. Every worldview, whether religious or not, has its point of vulnerability. There is a tension between theory and experience, raising questions over the coherence and trustworthiness of the worldview itself. In the case of Christianity, many locate that point of weakness in the existence of suffering within the world. In the case of atheism, it is the persistence of belief in God, when there is supposedly no God in which to believe.

Until recently, western atheism had waited patiently, believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now, a whiff of panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded, and seems set to exercise still greater influence in both the public and private spheres. The God Delusion expresses this deep anxiety, partly reflecting an intense distaste for religion. Yet there is something deeper here, often overlooked in the heat of debate. The anxiety is that the coherence of atheism itself is at stake. Might the unexpected resurgence of religion persuade many that atheism itself is fatally flawed as a worldview?

That's what Dawkins is worried about. The shrill, aggressive rhetoric of his God Delusion masks a deep insecurity about the public credibility of atheism. The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious believers, and others seeking for truth. (Might this be because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering?) Religious believers will be dismayed by its ritual stereotyping of religion, and will find its manifest lack of fairness a significant disincentive to take its arguments and concerns seriously. Seekers after truth who would not consider themselves religious may also find themselves shocked by Dawkins' aggressive rhetoric, his substitution of personal creedal statements for objective engagement with evidence, his hectoring and bullying tone towards "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads," and his utter determination to find nothing but fault with religion of any kind.

It is this deep, unsettling anxiety about the future of atheism which explains the high degree of dogmatism and aggressive rhetorical style of this new secular fundamentalism. The dogmatism of the work has been the subject of intense criticism in the secular press, reflecting growing alarm within the secularist community about the damage that Dawkins is doing to their public reputation. Many of those who might be expected to support Dawkins are running for cover, trying to distance themselves from this embarrassment.

To give an example: The God Delusion trumpets the fact that its author was recently voted one of the world's three leading intellectuals. This survey took place among the readers of Prospect magazine in November 2005. So what did this same Prospect magazine make of the book? Its reviewer was shocked at this "incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self-contradictory" book. The title of the review? "Dawkins the dogmatist."

But what of the arguments themselves? The God Delusion is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids, suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact, and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument. This makes dealing with its "arguments" a little problematical, in that the work frequently substitutes aggressive, bullying rhetoric for serious evidence-based argument. Dawkins often treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his preconceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalism's portrayal of atheism.

Space is limited, so let's look his two core arguments -- that religion can be explained away on scientific grounds, and that religion leads to violence. Dawkins dogmatically insists that religious belief is "blind trust," which refuses to take due account of evidence, or subject itself to examination. So why do people believe in God, when there is no God to believe in? For Dawkins, religion is simply the accidental and unnecessary outcome of biological or psychological processes. His arguments for this bold assertion are actually quite weak, and rest on an astonishingly superficial engagement with scientific studies.

For example, consider this important argument in The God Delusion. Since belief in God is utterly irrational (one of Dawkins' core beliefs, by the way), there has to be some biological or psychological way of explaining why so many people -- in fact, by far the greater part of the world's population -- fall victim to such a delusion. One of the explanations that Dawkins offers is that believing in God is like being infected with a contagious virus, which spreads throughout entire populations. Yet the analogy -- belief in God is like a virus -- seems to then assume ontological substance. Belief in God is a virus of the mind. Yet biological viruses are not merely hypothesized; they can be identified, observed, and their structure and mode of operation determined. Yet this hypothetical "virus of the mind" is an essentially polemical construction, devised to discredit ideas that Dawkins does not like.

So are all ideas viruses of the mind? Dawkins draws an absolute distinction between rational, scientific and evidence-based ideas, and spurious, irrational notions -- such as religious beliefs. The latter, not the former, count as mental viruses. But who decides what is "rational" and "scientific"? Dawkins does not see this as a problem, believing that he can easily categorize such ideas, separating the sheep from the goats.

Except it all turns out to be horribly complicated, losing the simplicity and elegance that marks a great idea. For instance, every worldview -- religious or secular -- ends up falling into the category of "belief systems," precisely because it cannot be proved. That is simply the nature of worldviews, and everyone knows it. It prevents nobody from holding a worldview in the first place, and doing so with complete intellectual integrity in the second. In the end, Dawkins' idea simply implodes, falling victim to his own subjective judgement of what is rational and true. It's not an idea that is taken seriously within the scientific community, and can safely be disregarded.

The main argument of The God Delusion, however, is that religion leads to violence and oppression. Dawkins treats this as defining characteristic of religion, airbrushing out of his somewhat skimpy account of the roots of violence any suggestion that it might be the result of political fanaticism -- or even atheism. He is adamant that he himself, as a good atheist, would never, ever fly airplanes into skyscrapers, or commit any other outrageous act of violence or oppression. Good for him. Neither would I. Yet the harsh reality is that religious and anti-religious violence has happened, and is likely to continue to do so.

As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland, I know about religious violence only too well. There is no doubt that religion can generate violence. But it's not alone in this. The history of the twentieth century has given us a frightening awareness of how political extremism can equally cause violence. In Latin America, millions of people seem to have "disappeared" as a result of ruthless campaigns of violence by right wing politicians and their militias. In Cambodia, Pol Pot eliminated his millions in the name of socialism.

The rise of the Soviet Union was of particular significance. Lenin regarded the elimination of religion as central to the socialist revolution, and put in place measures designed to eradicate religious beliefs through the "protracted use of violence." One of the greatest tragedies of this dark era in human history was that those who sought to eliminate religious belief through violence and oppression believed they were justified in doing so. They were accountable to no higher authority than the state.

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is "not the smallest evidence" that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda -- the elimination of religion. This doesn't fit with Dawkins' highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.

Dawkins develops a criticism that is often directed against religion in works of atheist apologetics -- namely, that it encourages the formation and maintenance of "in-groups" and "out-groups." For Dawkins, removing religion is essential if this form of social demarcation and discrimination is to be defeated. But what, many will wonder, about Jesus of Nazareth? Wasn't this a core theme of his teaching -- that the love of God transcends, and subsequently abrogates, such social divisions?

Dawkins' analysis here is unacceptable. There are points at which his ignorance of religion ceases to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In dealing with this question he draws extensively on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 by John Hartung, which asserts that -- and here I cite Dawkin's summary: Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality -- coupled with out-group hostility -- that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: "Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs." Many Christian readers of this will be astonished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins' method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic human sense of fairness which now pervades atheist fundamentalism.

There is little point in arguing with such fundamentalist nonsense. It's about as worthwhile as trying to persuade a flat-earther that the world is actually round. Dawkins seems to be so deeply trapped within his own worldview that he cannot assess alternatives. Yet many readers would value a more reliable and informed response, rather than accepting Dawkins' increasingly tedious antireligious tirades. Let's look at things as they actually stand.

In the first place, Jesus explicitly extends the Old Testament command to "love your neighbour" to "love your enemy" (Matthew 5.44). Far from endorsing "out-group hostility," Jesus both commended and commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation." As this feature of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is so well-known and distinctive, it is inexcusable that Dawkins should make no mention of it. Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to this demand. But it is there, right at the heart of the Christian ethic.

In the second place, many readers would point out that the familiar story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) makes it clear that the command to "love your neighbour" extends far beyond Judaism. (Indeed, this aspect of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth seems to have resulted in people suspecting Jesus of actually being a Samaritan: see John 8.48). It is certainly true that Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, gave priority to the Jews as God's chosen people, but his definition of who was a "true Jew" was radically broad. It included those who had excluded themselves from Judaism by intimate collaborators with Roman occupying forces. One of the main charges levelled against Jesus by his critics within Judaism was his open acceptance of these out-groups. Indeed a substantial part of his teaching can be seen as a defence of his behaviour towards them. Jesus' welcome of marginalized groups, who inhabited an ambiguous position between "in" and "out" is also well attested in accounts of his willingness to touch those considered by his culture to be ritually unclean (for instance Matthew 8.3, Matthew 9.20-25).

So what are we to make of this shrill and petulant manifesto of atheist fundamentalism? Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins' crude stereotypes, vastly over-simplified binary oppositions ("science is good, religion is bad"), straw men, and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. Might The God Delusion actually backfire, and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer? As the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse commented recently: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Dawkins' astonishingly superficial and inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply lead Christians to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about -- and that his atheism may therefore rest on a series of errors and misunderstandings. Ironically the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that it is actually atheism itself may be a delusion about God.
Theology