Challenging Faith

Tim Robbins · 28-04-2008 6:27pm #1

Hi,
Just a straw poll for Christians only if that's okay.
Have you ever read one book from beginning to end which seriously challenges religious faith? If so can you name it.
Kind Regards.
Tim.

JimiTime · 28-04-2008 6:50pm

Sort of - elaborate?

not that i can recall. though, the bible can be such a book itself tbh. I've never been truly motivated to. Never have i seen any arguement etc, that has stood up to my own scrutiny. by that I mean, it didn't convince 'me'. I suppose i found my keys, so no need to keep looking. unless of course someone shows me that i have the wrong keys. Its never happened though. Yes, i have changed my views within my christianity, but nothing promted me to look elsewhere.

Tim Robbins · 29-04-2008 10:47am

JimiTime wrote: »

not that i can recall. though, the bible can be such a book itself tbh. I've never been truly motivated to. Never have i seen any arguement etc, that has stood up to my own scrutiny. by that I mean, it didn't convince 'me'. I suppose i found my keys, so no need to keep looking. unless of course someone shows me that i have the wrong keys. Its never happened though. Yes, i have changed my views within my christianity, but nothing promted me to look elsewhere.

Thanks for your comment. This is interesting. Christian posters here challenge themselves by entering discussions with atheists. However, when it comes to reading something, it would appear that they don't challenge their faith.

JimiTime · 29-04-2008 11:02am

Sort of - elaborate?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thanks for your comment. This is interesting. Christian posters here challenge themselves by entering discussions with atheists. However, when it comes to reading something, it would appear that they don't challenge their faith.

Well, that is only me. As i said, I don't look for books that challenge my faith. Why would I? A scientologist has never presented an arguement that would motivate me to look into his view. neither has an Atheist, Muslim, Budhist etc. So for me, until I am motivated to look elsewhere, I will continue to reason out my Faith from within itself.

robindch · 29-04-2008 11:25am

No - why not?

I'm sure that a few people will be amused to hear that I was a vaguely observant catholic up until six or eight years ago, and was certainly happy to give the benefit of the doubt to religion and many of its various works and manifestations

A few things put the kibosh on that -- off the top of my head, these included reading some bits of the bible that I'd not read in any depth before; Dawkin's Selfish Gene which provided a simple and convincing framework for the continued existence of religion which was independent of any truth value that religion propagated, or claimed to; Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire which described the history of the early church in less than flattering terms and there was little that refuted anything he said; then, a lot of travelling to a lot of places where religion's a more passionate thing than it is here in Ireland: a visit to the Duomo di Milano which confirmed a few of Gibbon's unhappy observations; a morning in a megachurch in Dallas (unmissably awful); several close shaves with American missionaries and evangelists in Ireland, the USA, Ukraine, Russia, Cuba, Honduras, New Zealand, Indonesia and elsewhere.

All of these made it quite clear that what religion is and what religion claims to be are two very, very different things. And that religion is more than clever enough to make it difficult if not impossible to unweave, when it's expressed in its own miasmic terms.

Tim Robbins · 29-04-2008 11:30am

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, that is only me. As i said, I don't look for books that challenge my faith. Why would I? A scientologist has never presented an arguement that would motivate me to look into his view. neither has an Atheist, Muslim, Budhist etc. So for me, until I am motivated to look elsewhere, I will continue to reason out my Faith from within itself.

Your approach assumes the most challenging arguments come from people you meet (or interact with), I would say the most challenging arguments come from the best intellectuals who one never meets and hence reading is required.

Comments...

JimiTime · 29-04-2008 1:40pm

Sort of - elaborate?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Your approach assumes the most challenging arguments come from people you meet (or interact with), I would say the most challenging arguments come from the best intellectuals who one never meets and hence reading is required.

Comments...

Maybe. It comes down to this though. There is no way that there is no creator. Period! There is nothing that can ever unlock that in me. To me, its absolute folly to think any other way. I understand that there are people who are alot more intellectual than I am, who would say the opposite. But well, so what. With this, unbreakable fact (It is fact to me, and i'm the one who counts in my life:) ) I found that it was my responsability to find out who this creator is. The Living God, as described in scripture is the one I found to be true. All the others pretend. Its that simple for me really.

I don't really want to waste my time looking elsewhere. I do find that talking to people, and also coming here or looking up various things on the net gives me a pretty good idea of the arguements that are levied against my faith. But none of it convincing tbh.

Another thing just occurred to me actually. I think if I was to equate 'religion' with faith, I'd have trouble. Thankfully for me, they are completely different.

Tim Robbins · 29-04-2008 3:24pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe. It comes down to this though. There is no way that there is no creator. Period! There is nothing that can ever unlock that in me. To me, its absolute folly to think any other way. I understand that there are people who are alot more intellectual than I am, who would say the opposite. But well, so what. With this, unbreakable fact (It is fact to me, and i'm the one who counts in my life:) ) I found that it was my responsability to find out who this creator is. The Living God, as described in scripture is the one I found to be true. All the others pretend. Its that simple for me really.

There are several Gods described in several different scriptures.
But yes, if you only read one scripture and nothing that challenges that perspective, everything seems simple or "obvious" as you put it.

Plato's cave comes to mind.

JimiTime · 29-04-2008 4:35pm

Sort of - elaborate?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There are several Gods described in several different scriptures.
But yes, if you only read one scripture and nothing that challenges that perspective, everything seems simple or "obvious" as you put it.

Plato's cave comes to mind.

thats the thing though. you are assuming that you 'must' read books to challenge your faith. I'd usually have a look at the arguement presented, if i think there is something in it, I'll read the book.
Its like buying a greatest hits compilation. If i like what I hear on it, I'll go buy some albums of the artist. if I don't like what I hear, i don't bother usually. I feel that I know enough of the challegeing arguements to decide that they don't convince me. So again, why should I bother? I've not read the Quaran, but I've seen and heard enough to know not to waste my time with it. I understand, this is not how alot operate, but each to their own I suppose.

CerebralCortex · 29-04-2008 5:14pm

Sort of - elaborate?

I have no faith.

Tim Robbins · 29-04-2008 8:44pm

JimiTime wrote: »

thats the thing though. you are assuming that you 'must' read books to challenge your faith.

Yes to be really challenged intellectually one must read. It's not a question of investigating something you like, the truth isn't about what you like, it's about what's actually true.
There's an old saying "ignorance is bliss", and with the greatest of respect to a lot of atheists that is what a Christian or a Religious faith seems, as it is usually unchallenged in an intellectual sense.

JimiTime · 30-04-2008 12:18am

Sort of - elaborate?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes to be really challenged intellectually one must read.

i didn't say otherwise. i believe your question was do you read 'books that challenge your faith'. I told you I didn't, as i had heard or seen nothing to motivate such a thing. However, not reading a book, does not constitute 'not reading' in this age. As i've said, there is nothing I have read or heard or seen, that would motivate me to go get me some anti-christian literature.

It's not a question of investigating something you like, the truth isn't about what you like, it's about what's actually true.

I agree 100%.

There's an old saying "ignorance is bliss", and with the greatest of respect to a lot of atheists that is what a Christian or a Religious faith seems, as it is usually unchallenged in an intellectual sense.

Yeah, it does seem to be deemed this way by many, but what can ye do.

Tim Robbins · 30-04-2008 10:11am

JimiTime wrote: »

However, not reading a book, does not constitute 'not reading' in this age.

Well on the intellectual spectrum it does. There's a difference between reading, one may read the star and one may read the Irish times. They're not the same type of reading.

I know what I'll be reading to get my analysis of the Lisbon treaty :-)

Let me turn this on its head. If you're an atheist, I say it's still important to read the Gospels, some well known Theologians, some very intelligent people who advocate Christianity, a dabble into a few other religions. Otherwise you're just an head in the sand atheist and possibly haven't really challenged your viewpoint.

I see no difference in Christianity. There are Christians who'll stick their head in the sand and those who'll really challenge their views. If you read the reviews for The God Delusion on amazon, a large proportion of them are actually from Christians.

JimiTime · 30-04-2008 12:50pm

Sort of - elaborate?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well on the intellectual spectrum it does.

I am far from an intellectual, in case you haven't guessed:). Neither do I have a desire to be classed as intellectual. I am secure enough to know my own mind, and don't really need to meet any criteria for the sake of others i.e. to be considered smart.

There's a difference between reading, one may read the star and one may read the Irish times. They're not the same type of reading.

I agree, however, in this age of communication, information of all sorts is at your finger tips. Also the fact that I'm not afraid to have unpopular views means I don't mind being subjected to ridicule amongst folk. At College, I was almost the butt of the joke. Don't get me wrong, I was liked, as I'm a nice bloke:), but when it came to the old faith debate, I was a minority of one. I didn't mind being challenged, and if any point was made that I felt valid, I conceeded, and looked a little deeper.

I know what I'll be reading to get my analysis of the Lisbon treaty :-)

Is that a brand of doggy treat:)

Let me turn this on its head. If you're an atheist, I say it's still important to read the Gospels, some well known Theologians, some very intelligent people who advocate Christianity, a dabble into a few other religions. Otherwise you're just an head in the sand atheist and possibly haven't really challenged your viewpoint.

Fair enough. If you think they are important to read. However, I have never heard a point, that made me seek anti-Christian books. I have read anti-christian stuff on the net. I've seen anti-theist/anti-christian video's on the net etc. None of which have motivated me to question my faith as a whole. Alot of valid points are made about 'religion', but i'm not religious, so it doesn't have any relevence to me.

I see no difference in Christianity. There are Christians who'll stick their head in the sand and those who'll really challenge their views. If you read the reviews for The God Delusion on amazon, a large proportion of them are actually from Christians.

No doubt. And there have been ample amounts of Christian books in response to Dawkins etc. Again though, no point that Dawkins or anyone else for that matter has motivated me to question my faith as a whole.

You may differ in your criteria, but I know I don't have my head in the sand. You may disagree, but again, Disagreement is a friend of mine.

Tim Robbins · 30-04-2008 1:54pm

JimiTime wrote: »

You may differ in your criteria, but I know I don't have my head in the sand. You may disagree, but again, Disagreement is a friend of mine.

Yes I differ in my criteria but I would apply that to both atheists and theists.
I suppose I have "faith" in books :-)
Cheers.

JimiTime · 30-04-2008 2:51pm

Sort of - elaborate?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes I differ in my criteria but I would apply that to both atheists and theists.
I suppose I have "faith" in books :-)
Cheers.

:eek: You deluded fool:pac::)

RealEstateKing · 08-05-2008 11:56am

No - why not?

There is no way that there is no creator. Period! There is nothing that can ever unlock that in me.

Thanks for your honesty.

As an athiest there are many things that could unlock that idea on me: The existence of evidence for his existence for example. A good sound logical proof would be nice. A proper refutation of the Problem of Evil. Something in the Bible that it would be impossible for a person to know 2000 years ago. And many other things I havent even thought of yet.

So there we have it: Atheism is not simply a different type of 'faith'. Faith cannot be reasoned with. Lack of Faith can.

JimiTime · 08-05-2008 1:35pm

Sort of - elaborate?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Thanks for your honesty.

its a sad time, when people are moved to thanks, for someone being honest.

As an athiest there are many things that could unlock that idea on me: The existence of evidence for his existence for example. A good sound logical proof would be nice. A proper refutation of the Problem of Evil. Something in the Bible that it would be impossible for a person to know 2000 years ago. And many other things I havent even thought of yet.

And whats the relevance of this? That I'm just being stubborn? Well, as there is no proof or evidence of where the universe, or life for that matter, came from, I'm not going to assume that all that I witness everyday, (my eyes, ears, brainetc, tree's, the earth and on and on), that exhibits all the traits of design, is a consequence of chance. One may have faith in the belief that there is no designer, and that maybe one day you'll be able to explain how life came about, or where the big ball of cosmic dust that went bang came from etc, I don't share that faith with you though. My faith is in God.

So there we have it: Atheism is not simply a different type of 'faith'. Faith cannot be reasoned with. Lack of Faith can.

Atheism in its purest form is not faith i.e. someone who doesn't even ponder the question of where we came from. However, most atheists I've met reason God out of the equation, which means that they do have a faith. Either a faith in their incomplete knowledge of our origins, or faith in something external eventually finding an answer, usually science.

Faith in God can indeed be reasoned, but if someones preconceptions 'must' be upheld as reasonable, then I would agree that it is a waste of time.

PDN · 08-05-2008 1:43pm

JimiTime wrote: »

its a sad time, when people are moved to thanks, for someone being honest.

Usually in these forums when an atheist thanks a Christian for their honesty, they are rather more concerned with implying that those who take a different view are being dishonest than they are in expressing gratitude.

However, RealEstateKing may well be sincere and thus an honourable exception to the norm.

RealEstateKing · 08-05-2008 2:19pm

No - why not?

And whats the relevance of this? That I'm just being stubborn?

The relevance is that often in debates between Christians and Atheists the defence of "faith: (i.e. beleiving something you have no evidence for) is that it takes just as much 'faith' to be an 'atheist' as it does to be a beleiver.

You admitted in your post that no matter what the evidence is, or no matter what anyone argues to you, there is nothing that would make you doubt the existence of God. That shows that your beleifs are not equally valid to an atheists. My statement that there is no God is based on the total absence of reasons to beleive he exists, and the complete incoherence and contradictoriness and of religious doctrine.

What I do not, say, however, is that I could not be convinced that God does exist. If you've got reasons and arguments to show he exists, pull 'em out, lets have a look. You've had 2000 years to come up with an argument, and not one Christian out of all the millions has ever come up with one. We're getting a little impatient, not to mention skeptical, over here!

Faith in God can indeed be reasoned, but if someones preconceptions 'must' be upheld as reasonable

Just use the same criteria that you would use to prove anything else exists. That cup of coffee on the table in front of you will do. All you ever do is claim that there are different criteria for proving God exists than there is for everything else. Thats not an arguement.

I can use such slippery thinking to prove the existence of anything I want. Did you know there's a little leprachaun who lives in a cave in the earth, and if you ask him nicely he'll help you pass your exams? Well of course you cant see hijm, he's invisible, and yes I and millions of other people fail to pass our exams despite having consulted him, and anyway, if you don't beleive in him, he wont help you.

C'mon, that kind of 'reasoning' wouldnt get past an 8 year old.

JimiTime · 08-05-2008 4:23pm

Sort of - elaborate?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

The relevance is that often in debates between Christians and Atheists the defence of "faith: (i.e. beleiving something you have no evidence for) is that it takes just as much 'faith' to be an 'atheist' as it does to be a beleiver.

You admitted in your post that no matter what the evidence is, or no matter what anyone argues to you, there is nothing that would make you doubt the existence of God.

Well actually, to be more specific, i said I don't doubt we were 'created' and that this is fact to me. I said it was folly to think that we were not designed.

That shows that your beleifs are not equally valid to an atheists. My statement that there is no God is based on the total absence of reasons to beleive he exists, and the complete incoherence and contradictoriness and of religious doctrine.

You are now getting into the specifics of God, rather than what I actually said. I understand your confusion, most don't seperate the two. I have no doubt we were 'Created'. So lets deal with that. That being what i actually said.

Us being designed beings is not 'based on a total absence of reasons'. This world, and its content, displays all the evidence of design. In fact to make such a definitive statement about yourself i.e. You are atheist, is if anything, as baseless as my statement that I believe we were created.

What I do not, say, however, is that I could not be convinced that God does exist. If you've got reasons and arguments to show he exists, pull 'em out, lets have a look. You've had 2000 years to come up with an argument, and not one Christian out of all the millions has ever come up with one. We're getting a little impatient, not to mention skeptical, over here!

Again, forget God for the moment, and deal with origins. You have made a definitive statement that there is no designer, be it whatever. So can you show me the definitive evidence that gives you the right to say that your position is somehow a stronger position than someone saying, there is a designer?

Just use the same criteria that you would use to prove anything else exists. That cup of coffee on the table in front of you will do. All you ever do is claim that there are different criteria for proving God exists than there is for everything else. Thats not an arguement.

I'm not looking for an arguement. You are the one that demands that God must be measured through Scientific methods etc in order to be believed. I'm not trying to proove anything. If you're interested though, can you use this criteria to show me that it is wrong to think we have a designer?

I can use such slippery thinking to prove the existence of anything I want. Did you know there's a little leprachaun who lives in a cave in the earth, and if you ask him nicely he'll help you pass your exams? Well of course you cant see hijm, he's invisible, and yes I and millions of other people fail to pass our exams despite having consulted him, and anyway, if you don't beleive in him, he wont help you.

What is the basis for your faith in this leprachauns existance?

RealEstateKing · 08-05-2008 4:55pm

No - why not?

There is no way that there is no creator. Period! There is nothing that can ever unlock that in me.

If you merely said that you thought we were created, we'd have nothing to talk about. Its is the fact that you openly admitted to having a closed mind on the subject by saying what you said above, that I'm taking issue with.

As an atheist, I state that I do not beleive in God, now as things stand, cause I have never seen any evidence that he does. But, should some evidence come to light, I'd change my mind like I would about anything else.

This world, and its content, displays all the evidence of design.

Sure. If you disregard the hundreds of years of rigourous scientific research that has proved conclusively (as conclusively as we know the Earth goes around the sun) that evolution by natural selection is the cause of the great variety of life around us.

You can dispute this if you wish. BUu dont expect any more respect than you would get if you decided to beleive that the earth was flat.

So can you show me the definitive evidence that gives you the right to say that your position is somehow a stronger position than someone saying, there is a designer?

Well you can read the acres of scientific research which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the variety of life is due to evolution by natural selection. No designer required.

However , even if this were not the case: You are the one for whom the burden of proof rests. Put it this way. If I told you I had discovered a new planet in the solar system, you would rightly say "OK, evidence please." If I dont provide any, you would doubt my claims (and rightly so). There would be no burden on you to prove that this planet does not exist.

However, I might insist that I know this planet exists, but it's invisible, cant be detected on any telescope, and you have to beleive in it to be able to see it. You'd probably show me the door (and hand me a number for the nearest mental hospital.)

You are the one that demands that God must be measured through Scientific methods etc in order to be believed

No we both insist on this criteria, all the time You use scientific methods everyday to assess the truth/falsehood of things, but you dont do it in this one case, which you have provided a special category for. You are simply bending your intelligence around your beleif.

What is the basis for your faith in this leprachauns existance?

Well, I've beleived in him ever since I was a child. I feel his presence on the wind. And I find it comforting that he is there. I wouldnt want to live in a world without him in it.

See? Irritatingly childish isnt it?

JimiTime · 08-05-2008 5:36pm

Sort of - elaborate?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

If you merely said that you thought we were created, we'd have nothing to talk about. Its is the fact that you openly admitted to having a closed mind on the subject by saying what you said above, that I'm taking issue with.

Ok, is your mind closed to the possability you don't exist? If so, then thats me and design. If not, then thats just philisophical nonsense that i wouldn't get into.

But, should some evidence come to light, I'd change my mind like I would about anything else.

Ditto. But it wont. My original statement is definitive, however, if there was some solid proof I am wrong, I'd accept it. But such is my belief that there will never be such proof, I can confidently say I wont be changed on my position of there being a designer.

Sure. If you disregard the hundreds of years of rigourous scientific research that has proved conclusively (as conclusively as we know the Earth goes around the sun) that evolution by natural selection is the cause of the great variety of life around us.

Does evolution explain the origin of life? or the origin of the ball of cosmic dust that went bang?

You can dispute this if you wish. BUu dont expect any more respect than you would get if you decided to beleive that the earth was flat.

I didn't mention evolution.

However , even if this were not the case: You are the one for whom the burden of proof rests. Put it this way. If I told you I had discovered a new planet in the solar system, you would rightly say "OK, evidence please." If I dont provide any, you would doubt my claims (and rightly so). There would be no burden on you to prove that this planet does not exist.

However, I might insist that I know this planet exists, but it's invisible, cant be detected on any telescope, and you have to beleive in it to be able to see it. You'd probably show me the door (and hand me a number for the nearest mental hospital.)

Yeah, I've heard this burden of proof stuff before. I would disagree with it. I'm not asking you to show god does not exist. Nor am I saying, at this point, that God exists. What I am saying, is that this world and its contents, exhibit all the hallmarks of a designer. If i was to discover a car on Jupiter, i wouldn't assume it wasn't designed by someone or something. I'd see the affect of a Cause. Just because I didn't see that cause, i would not say that the car had built itself. So IMO, the burden of proof is on the person who states 'we were not designed', to give me a reason why i should believe it.

No we both insist on this criteria, all the time You use scientific methods everyday to assess the truth/falsehood of things, but you dont do it in this one case, which you have provided a special category for. You are simply bending your intelligence around your beleif.

And what were these methods before there was a scientific method? Science measures the physical world, so complaining that it can't measure the spiritual is really not my problem. If you believe that only things measured by the scientific method can be believed, then thats your perogative. I'm not bending anything around anything.

Well, I've beleived in him ever since I was a child. I feel his presence on the wind. And I find it comforting that he is there. I wouldnt want to live in a world without him in it.

And what is your basis for faith in him?

Challenging Faith

Have you read a book from beginning to end which seriously challenges your faith? 8 votes

Comments