It’s probably not my place to comment, but I feel like atheists generally have more open hearts to all humanity than the average American who calls himself or herself a Christian. I certainly can’t speak to anyone here and definitely don’t mean to imply that. But if the afterlife does exist as described, it’s the most injust system imaginable. Torture for eternity? Nobody deserves that.
Sorry I missed this! I thought I responded ages ago and clearly did not. My apologies.
FWIW it's definitely your place to comment :)
I think it probably varies a lot based on who we've met. The Christians I've been lucky enough to know are the kind of folks who would give you the shirt off their backs (seriously, 2 elderly Christians (one recovering from cancer) let me stay with them in 2021 when I had tested positive for COVID and had nowhere else to go).
But I also have really wonderful atheist friends. And, conversely, I've heard stories of many intolerant and hateful folks who call themselves Christian (many of whom hang out on social media) and some intolerant and hateful folks who call themselves atheists. I think it depends who you see.
As far as the afterlife: I agree that nobody deserves torture for all eternity. This is where I lean a little more universalist; I think the afterlife simply represents a choice, to dwell forever with God or forever without God (which some of my atheist friends may say they want, but which I personally think they would enjoy less than they think they would). But I also think the afterlife is a place where you have agency: that is, if you spend your whole life hating God, then you could find your way to Hell and a realm where He really isn't present at all; but if you find that that's actually not to your liking the way you thought it would be, it's never too late to make a different choice.
And to be clear, the point of the essay wasn't that I think Susie's going to afterlife Heaven; just that I think she's closer to God than she thinks she is. Call where she is an excellent first step if you want (though, perhaps, a first step substantially larger than most of my steps; she's living out the first of Jesus' two commandments (Mark 12:30-31) rather more deeply than I sometimes have).
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I agree with you that atheists can be in a good place (call it Heaven) and Christians in a bad place (call it Hell) here on earth. However, I believe categorically that atheists cannot go to the real Heaven and spend eternity in God's presence, no matter how good their earthly deeds are or how much they love their earthly neighbors. Accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected in glory is the one and only way to the true heaven; any other position smacks of moral relativism.
I definitely see where you're coming from! And to be clear, the point of the essay wasn't that I think Susie's going to afterlife Heaven; just that I think she's closer to God than she thinks she is. Call where she is an excellent first step if you want.
But more broadly, I would love to get more of your thoughts on the afterlife! The reason is that I haven't thought about it much (which I realize makes me an odd Christian; but I'm much more concerned with what God wants me to do in this life). Here are my current thoughts on the afterlife, and I'd love your take on them :)
1) I think only those who seek and find God have much of a chance of spending eternity with Him in Heaven. The reason is simple: I think God's presence takes some acclimating to. I think Dallas Willard makes this point in The Divine Conspiracy, and it's also how I interpret part of Voyage of the Dawn Treader (when they get near to Aslan's country, the sun is so bright that they wouldn't have been able to bear it if they hadn't been drinking sweet ocean water for awhile to help their eyes adjust). Being with God means letting go of our negative judgments, our desire to backbite, our resentments, etc; and is not an easy thing to do.
2) I've known some non-Christians who I think could better bear God's holy presence than some Christians I've known. I think the former group actually stand a greater chance of spending eternity in heaven than the latter group.
3) I would say that the best (perhaps only?) way to acclimate to God is to love Jesus with all your heart/mind/body/soul, to surrender your life to him, and to try to follow him with everything you've got. I do think that some people do this even if they call Jesus by a different name. This is sort of my interpretation of the character Emeth in Lewis' Last Battle.
(Trying to get back on track here.) Every human experiences common grace and can share common grace; we all experience sunshine, for example, and we can all feel love toward someone else and perform "good" deeds. The Apostle Paul addresses the question of people who have never heard of Jesus but nevertheless act in the way Jesus taught us to act. He acknowledges that it would be inconsistent with God's loving nature for them to be punished for not believing in a Name they have never heard. I don't have the precise verses handy, but he then says something like, "How can they believe if they haven't heard, and how can they hear if they haven't been taught?" This is where the Great Commission comes in: those of us who have heard and do believe are instructed to carry the Gospel to all peoples, and Jesus will not return (and the final judgment will not occur) until that has happened.
But . . . If God, who created Susie and therefore has the right to do with Susie whatever He wills, has told Susie that, if she wants to experience His blessings forever, she must believe that Jesus is His Son who came to earth to die for her sins . . . And Susie, despite being told that, chooses of her own God-given free will, not to do so, for whatever humanly logical reasons she has . . . Then she shouldn't be surprised when God does what He told her He would do.
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that I don't pretend to understand all of God's ways, but I do believe He has made the path of salvation clear to me, so I just accept His sovereignty in those situations I don't understand and trust that He, who stands outside of place and time while I do not, is always acting for the good of those who love Him. Hopefully, at some point in eternity, I'll get to understand why the things that didn't make sense to me here actually did make sense in His grand scheme.
Responding to both you and (to some extent) Anti-Hip, this is where faith as described in Hebrews 11:1 comes into play for me: "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Our human sense of fairness is that people who are "good" should not spend eternity being "tortured" (to use Anti-Hip's word) for not believing in Jesus's name. The problem with this analysis is that God isn't human; His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. As He says in a variety of places in the Bible, He is the sovereign Creator; His creation has no right to tell Him what to do.
Let me interject here (because I'm typing on my phone and my thoughts are moving faster than I can type) that I'm not sure Hell is torture in the sense that I think Anti-Hip means. To me, Hell isn't necessarily literally burning in a lake of fire for eternity, but eternal separation from God. Because all light and love flow from God, Hell will be a dark and lonely place for atheists but may not be as different from their current earthly experience as it would be for Christians. I think atheists have a God-shape hole in their souls (as do we all), even if they don't (or aren't willing to) recognize it; Christians feel that hole deeply through the grace of the Holy Spirit, so never having that hole filled equals Hell for us.
Another interjection: please understand that when I use the word "Christian" here, I'm talking about true Christians, not simply self-professed Christians. There are (maybe a lot of) people who call themselves Christian because they were baptized as babies or go to church, but are not Christian in the sense I mean.
1) I really appreciate your point about Paul! I don't recall that verse either, but I'll see if I can track it down.
2) I agree with the second paragraph of your first comment. But for the sake of discussion, let me push the hypothetical here. Suppose that Susie is told everything you describe in your second paragraph; but she is told, not by God Himself, but by a pastor who quoted the right scriptures but who also molested her. Do you think God would punish her for turning away from Him? She was told the truth, after all; but told it by a person whom she had absolutely no reason to ever trust.
(To be clear, I'm trying to push this thought experiment as far as it can go because I'm enjoying this conversation and getting a lot out of your contribution; not merely to be contrarian :) )
3)
"Let me interject here (because I'm typing on my phone and my thoughts are moving faster than I can type) that I'm not sure Hell is torture in the sense that I think Anti-Hip means. To me, Hell isn't necessarily literally burning in a lake of fire for eternity, but eternal separation from God. Because all light and love flow from God, Hell will be a dark and lonely place for atheists but may not be as different from their current earthly experience as it would be for Christians. I think atheists have a God-shape hole in their souls (as do we all), even if they don't (or aren't willing to) recognize it; Christians feel that hole deeply through the grace of the Holy Spirit, so never having that hole filled equals Hell for us.
Another interjection: please understand that when I use the word "Christian" here, I'm talking about true Christians, not simply self-professed Christians. There are (maybe a lot of) people who call themselves Christian because they were baptized as babies or go to church, but are not Christian in the sense I mean."
BTW, what appears as my first comment above (beginning with the parenthetical "Trying to get back on track here") was actually my second comment. It looks like Substack displays multiple replies in reverse chronological order, as it appears to be doing with my most recent comments. (Reply #3)
In response to the continuation of your thought experiment, I think I have to stand on my position that, if Susie rejects the truth about God, even for the perfectly (humanly) rational reason that she heard the Word from an abusive pastor, she will not experience eternity with Him. However, there is a mystery here which I think might well intervene such that God is not "punish[ing] her for turning away from Him." We are told that only those who are called by the Holy Spirit are capable of truly turning to the Father and Son for salvation. I suspect that the Holy Spirit can overcome Susie's human reaction to the manner in which she was first exposed to the truth, if that is His will. After all, there are a lot of Christians who have suffered mightily under circumstances which many atheists would say demonstrate God's absence, yet their suffering does not turn them away from Him. (Reply #2)
Here are the verses I was thinking of: Romans 10:14-15 (ESV):
"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Reply #1)
As an atheist, I think it's rather head-scratching to me to think that an "infinitely-loving" God would stoop to torture an self-admittedly limited and fallible soul for potentially an infinite amount of time just for coming to the wrong conclusion about the nature of the universe. Doesn't seem to serve much purpose except as a totalitarian warning to others, which seems less god-like and instead a rather human-like goal. And we're not talking the best humans here.
But, as an admittedly fallible and limited creature, I know I certainly could be wrong. Maybe I simply need to adopt the ways of the godly, and insist that I know "the truth" -- especially if it's in all-caps and an explanation point? (But I thought it was called "faith"? You know, "belief"?) I'm not too concerned, though; I've got dozens of other solid reasons.
Never mind. My head always hurts whenever I try to make sense of this stuff. But your email caught my attention, and it's Friday afternoon...
"As an atheist, I think it's rather head-scratching to me to think that an "infinitely-loving" God would stoop to torture an self-admittedly limited and fallible soul for potentially an infinite amount of time just for coming to the wrong conclusion about the nature of the universe. Doesn't seem to serve much purpose except as a totalitarian warning to others, which seems less god-like and instead a rather human-like goal. And we're not talking the best humans here."
- This is my take too. I share your head-scratching here.
"But, as an admittedly fallible and limited creature, I know I certainly could be wrong. Maybe I simply need to adopt the ways of the godly, and insist that I know "the truth" -- especially if it's in all-caps and an explanation point? (But I thought it was called "faith"? You know, "belief"?) I'm not too concerned, though; I've got dozens of other solid reasons."--FWIW, I've never met a Christian I respect who would encourage this :p
"This is my take too. I share your head-scratching here."
I imagine you are on a lifelong search yearning for truth, while (I believe) I nevertheless have a very different (negative rather than poositive), consistent, and now long (I'm retirement age) emotional reaction to the revealed religion, but even broadly 'spiritual', environment that surrounds me. What would you say (of just guess, by your gut) is the difference between you and me?
1) In God's eyes, I don't think the difference between us is very great at all. I think He loves us both deeply and equally.
2) I would hypothesize (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you've had 1 or more profoundly negative experiences with the Christian church (and/or with practitioners of some other spiritual path) whereas I've been lucky to mostly see the good side of the church. I think our experiences do a lot to shape our worldview.
"1) In God's eyes, I don't think the difference between us is very great at all. I think He loves us both deeply and equally."
I simply have no reasons to believe to believe an all-powerful, invisible being exists to love and protect me. In fact, the concept seems completely preposterous. I'm convinced that evolution had produced, in humans' advancing animal brains, a way of dealing with consequences of emerging intelligence and consciousness. High among these consequences was man's realization of powerlessness and aloneness, which had to be remediated for societies to be psychologically healthy (and thus capable of perpetuating). By undirected natural selection, then, the presence of a god conceptualization beat out the lack of one, which has now been realized in countless ways within countless societies over countless millennia. I'm a case exception to the rule (similar to, e.g., red hair, or better, left-handedness), as I mention further below.
The clincher for me is the Abrahamic God case, both in the lack of concrete evidence for, and the corresponding plethora of evidence that says intelligent, secretive, authoritarian men created c.3000(?) years ago: "Here, take this book we have! It's written by God. (Yeah, yeah, I know, it looks like Abraham's handwriting/cuneiform-style -- he took God's dictation up in his super-sacred ultra-secret mountain retreat, OK? Sheesh...) He gives you all the explanations for everything. You'll see also that He says that He'll be real nice to you if you just do what He says, but will be tortured for eternity if you don't. A no-brainer, huh? If you're still too dumb to understand what's required of you, oh slow disciple, re-read 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' to beat you over the head with very heavy hint about your role; the story is conveniently right up front. Now, if you *still* are squirming with questions, just ask us holy men, we'll set you straight. Oh, and by the way, note that He says we (and our culture) are your natural leaders, and to do what we say when He's nowhere to be seen and thus (obviously) busy elsewhere. Now, if your mind starts wandering and you come to have any other ideas than ours, STFU if you know what's good for you. Have nice day!"
Another millennium later, when apparently this mental oppression was producing too much weariness, the original Bad-Cop god was supplemented with a new-and-improved Good-Cop god, and so the Jesus-concept was born. And off and away they went, soon for yet another millennium of dark times, until finally slapped to their senses only by the consequences of the invention of the printing press. Including the rise of literacy. Oops...
IOW, the intelligent, secretive, authoritarian men I mentioned above, using the recently developed invention of writing, had took full advantage of the evolution-driven human religiosity nature with a sophisticated cultural context (c.1000 BC?) to create, and document in great detail, an impressive unitary god *assigned as the source for* truths about human nature. It is an invention that has shown over the years to be a smashing population-management success, a Mother of All Psy-Ops. The (minor) Achilles' heel for this plan, though, is that as the intensity of the religiosity feeling/attitude varies among people, a small percentage with a much lower than average religiosity (like me) can become quite an annoyance, especially in eras such as ours (and by the middle of the Enlightenment) allowing relatively high freedom of thought and speech.
I've seen many very highly intelligent people (certainly smarter than me) proclaim to be believers. The one thing they have in common, though, is an inability to actually *explain* their belief to my, or apparently any, skeptical inquiry, which is death to its transferability. So, IMO: Either you have the capacity to believe (even if it's subconscious), or you don't, or have some other spot on a sliding scale of religiosity -- *that's* what *really* drives one's belief.
"2) I would hypothesize (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you've had 1 or more profoundly negative experiences with the Christian church (and/or with practitioners of some other spiritual path) whereas I've been lucky to mostly see the good side of the church. I think our experiences do a lot to shape our worldview."
My "profoundly negative" experience was, ad nauseum, precisely the (IMO) stupidity described above (plus really a whole lot more stupidity I don't have enough time to type here). That, combined with a obstinate refusal to discuss it and so work out its alleged "TRUTH!". They did a number of other jerky things too, yes, but those were not nearly as extreme as the worst I've heard from other and have long faded, while the failure of the *argument* for God is what really matters late in my adulthood.
It’s probably not my place to comment, but I feel like atheists generally have more open hearts to all humanity than the average American who calls himself or herself a Christian. I certainly can’t speak to anyone here and definitely don’t mean to imply that. But if the afterlife does exist as described, it’s the most injust system imaginable. Torture for eternity? Nobody deserves that.
Sorry I missed this! I thought I responded ages ago and clearly did not. My apologies.
FWIW it's definitely your place to comment :)
I think it probably varies a lot based on who we've met. The Christians I've been lucky enough to know are the kind of folks who would give you the shirt off their backs (seriously, 2 elderly Christians (one recovering from cancer) let me stay with them in 2021 when I had tested positive for COVID and had nowhere else to go).
But I also have really wonderful atheist friends. And, conversely, I've heard stories of many intolerant and hateful folks who call themselves Christian (many of whom hang out on social media) and some intolerant and hateful folks who call themselves atheists. I think it depends who you see.
As far as the afterlife: I agree that nobody deserves torture for all eternity. This is where I lean a little more universalist; I think the afterlife simply represents a choice, to dwell forever with God or forever without God (which some of my atheist friends may say they want, but which I personally think they would enjoy less than they think they would). But I also think the afterlife is a place where you have agency: that is, if you spend your whole life hating God, then you could find your way to Hell and a realm where He really isn't present at all; but if you find that that's actually not to your liking the way you thought it would be, it's never too late to make a different choice.
Anyway. What do you think of all that?
Susie does not believe & love our Lord &
Savior Jesus Christ .
Very true!
And to be clear, the point of the essay wasn't that I think Susie's going to afterlife Heaven; just that I think she's closer to God than she thinks she is. Call where she is an excellent first step if you want (though, perhaps, a first step substantially larger than most of my steps; she's living out the first of Jesus' two commandments (Mark 12:30-31) rather more deeply than I sometimes have).
What do you think?
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I agree with you that atheists can be in a good place (call it Heaven) and Christians in a bad place (call it Hell) here on earth. However, I believe categorically that atheists cannot go to the real Heaven and spend eternity in God's presence, no matter how good their earthly deeds are or how much they love their earthly neighbors. Accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected in glory is the one and only way to the true heaven; any other position smacks of moral relativism.
I definitely see where you're coming from! And to be clear, the point of the essay wasn't that I think Susie's going to afterlife Heaven; just that I think she's closer to God than she thinks she is. Call where she is an excellent first step if you want.
But more broadly, I would love to get more of your thoughts on the afterlife! The reason is that I haven't thought about it much (which I realize makes me an odd Christian; but I'm much more concerned with what God wants me to do in this life). Here are my current thoughts on the afterlife, and I'd love your take on them :)
1) I think only those who seek and find God have much of a chance of spending eternity with Him in Heaven. The reason is simple: I think God's presence takes some acclimating to. I think Dallas Willard makes this point in The Divine Conspiracy, and it's also how I interpret part of Voyage of the Dawn Treader (when they get near to Aslan's country, the sun is so bright that they wouldn't have been able to bear it if they hadn't been drinking sweet ocean water for awhile to help their eyes adjust). Being with God means letting go of our negative judgments, our desire to backbite, our resentments, etc; and is not an easy thing to do.
2) I've known some non-Christians who I think could better bear God's holy presence than some Christians I've known. I think the former group actually stand a greater chance of spending eternity in heaven than the latter group.
3) I would say that the best (perhaps only?) way to acclimate to God is to love Jesus with all your heart/mind/body/soul, to surrender your life to him, and to try to follow him with everything you've got. I do think that some people do this even if they call Jesus by a different name. This is sort of my interpretation of the character Emeth in Lewis' Last Battle.
What do you think?
(Trying to get back on track here.) Every human experiences common grace and can share common grace; we all experience sunshine, for example, and we can all feel love toward someone else and perform "good" deeds. The Apostle Paul addresses the question of people who have never heard of Jesus but nevertheless act in the way Jesus taught us to act. He acknowledges that it would be inconsistent with God's loving nature for them to be punished for not believing in a Name they have never heard. I don't have the precise verses handy, but he then says something like, "How can they believe if they haven't heard, and how can they hear if they haven't been taught?" This is where the Great Commission comes in: those of us who have heard and do believe are instructed to carry the Gospel to all peoples, and Jesus will not return (and the final judgment will not occur) until that has happened.
But . . . If God, who created Susie and therefore has the right to do with Susie whatever He wills, has told Susie that, if she wants to experience His blessings forever, she must believe that Jesus is His Son who came to earth to die for her sins . . . And Susie, despite being told that, chooses of her own God-given free will, not to do so, for whatever humanly logical reasons she has . . . Then she shouldn't be surprised when God does what He told her He would do.
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that I don't pretend to understand all of God's ways, but I do believe He has made the path of salvation clear to me, so I just accept His sovereignty in those situations I don't understand and trust that He, who stands outside of place and time while I do not, is always acting for the good of those who love Him. Hopefully, at some point in eternity, I'll get to understand why the things that didn't make sense to me here actually did make sense in His grand scheme.
Responding to both you and (to some extent) Anti-Hip, this is where faith as described in Hebrews 11:1 comes into play for me: "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Our human sense of fairness is that people who are "good" should not spend eternity being "tortured" (to use Anti-Hip's word) for not believing in Jesus's name. The problem with this analysis is that God isn't human; His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. As He says in a variety of places in the Bible, He is the sovereign Creator; His creation has no right to tell Him what to do.
Let me interject here (because I'm typing on my phone and my thoughts are moving faster than I can type) that I'm not sure Hell is torture in the sense that I think Anti-Hip means. To me, Hell isn't necessarily literally burning in a lake of fire for eternity, but eternal separation from God. Because all light and love flow from God, Hell will be a dark and lonely place for atheists but may not be as different from their current earthly experience as it would be for Christians. I think atheists have a God-shape hole in their souls (as do we all), even if they don't (or aren't willing to) recognize it; Christians feel that hole deeply through the grace of the Holy Spirit, so never having that hole filled equals Hell for us.
Another interjection: please understand that when I use the word "Christian" here, I'm talking about true Christians, not simply self-professed Christians. There are (maybe a lot of) people who call themselves Christian because they were baptized as babies or go to church, but are not Christian in the sense I mean.
1) I really appreciate your point about Paul! I don't recall that verse either, but I'll see if I can track it down.
2) I agree with the second paragraph of your first comment. But for the sake of discussion, let me push the hypothetical here. Suppose that Susie is told everything you describe in your second paragraph; but she is told, not by God Himself, but by a pastor who quoted the right scriptures but who also molested her. Do you think God would punish her for turning away from Him? She was told the truth, after all; but told it by a person whom she had absolutely no reason to ever trust.
(To be clear, I'm trying to push this thought experiment as far as it can go because I'm enjoying this conversation and getting a lot out of your contribution; not merely to be contrarian :) )
3)
"Let me interject here (because I'm typing on my phone and my thoughts are moving faster than I can type) that I'm not sure Hell is torture in the sense that I think Anti-Hip means. To me, Hell isn't necessarily literally burning in a lake of fire for eternity, but eternal separation from God. Because all light and love flow from God, Hell will be a dark and lonely place for atheists but may not be as different from their current earthly experience as it would be for Christians. I think atheists have a God-shape hole in their souls (as do we all), even if they don't (or aren't willing to) recognize it; Christians feel that hole deeply through the grace of the Holy Spirit, so never having that hole filled equals Hell for us.
Another interjection: please understand that when I use the word "Christian" here, I'm talking about true Christians, not simply self-professed Christians. There are (maybe a lot of) people who call themselves Christian because they were baptized as babies or go to church, but are not Christian in the sense I mean."
- Agreed!
BTW, what appears as my first comment above (beginning with the parenthetical "Trying to get back on track here") was actually my second comment. It looks like Substack displays multiple replies in reverse chronological order, as it appears to be doing with my most recent comments. (Reply #3)
In response to the continuation of your thought experiment, I think I have to stand on my position that, if Susie rejects the truth about God, even for the perfectly (humanly) rational reason that she heard the Word from an abusive pastor, she will not experience eternity with Him. However, there is a mystery here which I think might well intervene such that God is not "punish[ing] her for turning away from Him." We are told that only those who are called by the Holy Spirit are capable of truly turning to the Father and Son for salvation. I suspect that the Holy Spirit can overcome Susie's human reaction to the manner in which she was first exposed to the truth, if that is His will. After all, there are a lot of Christians who have suffered mightily under circumstances which many atheists would say demonstrate God's absence, yet their suffering does not turn them away from Him. (Reply #2)
Very good points :)
Here are the verses I was thinking of: Romans 10:14-15 (ESV):
"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Reply #1)
Thanks!
As an atheist, I think it's rather head-scratching to me to think that an "infinitely-loving" God would stoop to torture an self-admittedly limited and fallible soul for potentially an infinite amount of time just for coming to the wrong conclusion about the nature of the universe. Doesn't seem to serve much purpose except as a totalitarian warning to others, which seems less god-like and instead a rather human-like goal. And we're not talking the best humans here.
But, as an admittedly fallible and limited creature, I know I certainly could be wrong. Maybe I simply need to adopt the ways of the godly, and insist that I know "the truth" -- especially if it's in all-caps and an explanation point? (But I thought it was called "faith"? You know, "belief"?) I'm not too concerned, though; I've got dozens of other solid reasons.
Never mind. My head always hurts whenever I try to make sense of this stuff. But your email caught my attention, and it's Friday afternoon...
"As an atheist, I think it's rather head-scratching to me to think that an "infinitely-loving" God would stoop to torture an self-admittedly limited and fallible soul for potentially an infinite amount of time just for coming to the wrong conclusion about the nature of the universe. Doesn't seem to serve much purpose except as a totalitarian warning to others, which seems less god-like and instead a rather human-like goal. And we're not talking the best humans here."
- This is my take too. I share your head-scratching here.
"But, as an admittedly fallible and limited creature, I know I certainly could be wrong. Maybe I simply need to adopt the ways of the godly, and insist that I know "the truth" -- especially if it's in all-caps and an explanation point? (But I thought it was called "faith"? You know, "belief"?) I'm not too concerned, though; I've got dozens of other solid reasons."--FWIW, I've never met a Christian I respect who would encourage this :p
"This is my take too. I share your head-scratching here."
I imagine you are on a lifelong search yearning for truth, while (I believe) I nevertheless have a very different (negative rather than poositive), consistent, and now long (I'm retirement age) emotional reaction to the revealed religion, but even broadly 'spiritual', environment that surrounds me. What would you say (of just guess, by your gut) is the difference between you and me?
It's a good question!
1) In God's eyes, I don't think the difference between us is very great at all. I think He loves us both deeply and equally.
2) I would hypothesize (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you've had 1 or more profoundly negative experiences with the Christian church (and/or with practitioners of some other spiritual path) whereas I've been lucky to mostly see the good side of the church. I think our experiences do a lot to shape our worldview.
What do you think?
"1) In God's eyes, I don't think the difference between us is very great at all. I think He loves us both deeply and equally."
I simply have no reasons to believe to believe an all-powerful, invisible being exists to love and protect me. In fact, the concept seems completely preposterous. I'm convinced that evolution had produced, in humans' advancing animal brains, a way of dealing with consequences of emerging intelligence and consciousness. High among these consequences was man's realization of powerlessness and aloneness, which had to be remediated for societies to be psychologically healthy (and thus capable of perpetuating). By undirected natural selection, then, the presence of a god conceptualization beat out the lack of one, which has now been realized in countless ways within countless societies over countless millennia. I'm a case exception to the rule (similar to, e.g., red hair, or better, left-handedness), as I mention further below.
The clincher for me is the Abrahamic God case, both in the lack of concrete evidence for, and the corresponding plethora of evidence that says intelligent, secretive, authoritarian men created c.3000(?) years ago: "Here, take this book we have! It's written by God. (Yeah, yeah, I know, it looks like Abraham's handwriting/cuneiform-style -- he took God's dictation up in his super-sacred ultra-secret mountain retreat, OK? Sheesh...) He gives you all the explanations for everything. You'll see also that He says that He'll be real nice to you if you just do what He says, but will be tortured for eternity if you don't. A no-brainer, huh? If you're still too dumb to understand what's required of you, oh slow disciple, re-read 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' to beat you over the head with very heavy hint about your role; the story is conveniently right up front. Now, if you *still* are squirming with questions, just ask us holy men, we'll set you straight. Oh, and by the way, note that He says we (and our culture) are your natural leaders, and to do what we say when He's nowhere to be seen and thus (obviously) busy elsewhere. Now, if your mind starts wandering and you come to have any other ideas than ours, STFU if you know what's good for you. Have nice day!"
Another millennium later, when apparently this mental oppression was producing too much weariness, the original Bad-Cop god was supplemented with a new-and-improved Good-Cop god, and so the Jesus-concept was born. And off and away they went, soon for yet another millennium of dark times, until finally slapped to their senses only by the consequences of the invention of the printing press. Including the rise of literacy. Oops...
IOW, the intelligent, secretive, authoritarian men I mentioned above, using the recently developed invention of writing, had took full advantage of the evolution-driven human religiosity nature with a sophisticated cultural context (c.1000 BC?) to create, and document in great detail, an impressive unitary god *assigned as the source for* truths about human nature. It is an invention that has shown over the years to be a smashing population-management success, a Mother of All Psy-Ops. The (minor) Achilles' heel for this plan, though, is that as the intensity of the religiosity feeling/attitude varies among people, a small percentage with a much lower than average religiosity (like me) can become quite an annoyance, especially in eras such as ours (and by the middle of the Enlightenment) allowing relatively high freedom of thought and speech.
I've seen many very highly intelligent people (certainly smarter than me) proclaim to be believers. The one thing they have in common, though, is an inability to actually *explain* their belief to my, or apparently any, skeptical inquiry, which is death to its transferability. So, IMO: Either you have the capacity to believe (even if it's subconscious), or you don't, or have some other spot on a sliding scale of religiosity -- *that's* what *really* drives one's belief.
"2) I would hypothesize (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you've had 1 or more profoundly negative experiences with the Christian church (and/or with practitioners of some other spiritual path) whereas I've been lucky to mostly see the good side of the church. I think our experiences do a lot to shape our worldview."
My "profoundly negative" experience was, ad nauseum, precisely the (IMO) stupidity described above (plus really a whole lot more stupidity I don't have enough time to type here). That, combined with a obstinate refusal to discuss it and so work out its alleged "TRUTH!". They did a number of other jerky things too, yes, but those were not nearly as extreme as the worst I've heard from other and have long faded, while the failure of the *argument* for God is what really matters late in my adulthood.