From this link:
"The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous," Bob Enyart (Christian radio host)
So, if I read this right, "faith" is allowed to be considered fact to back up a hypothesis, i.e. evidence. While I find it admirable that many people around the world have faith in their various deities / God / etc, I don't see how that's actually anything like a fact. For one, there are plenty of different religions with different beliefs and many people who have faith in those beliefs. Does that mean all of them are then true? What if they have conflicting beliefs?
Then we go to the second sentence, which is even more confusing. Okay, ignoring the evidence for gravity would be hard, but if we managed to do so (i.e., by believing we could step out of a 10th story window and have no problems with not falling), it would be dangerous. Now, the fact that gravity is constantly in effect is rather difficult to ignore, but okay, I can see it being used to help an argument. But what then does ignoring the 'evidence' for the Creator do? (I use quotes here because I find his evidence very flimsy. There are other things I find more convincing, but nothing like what he appears to be saying.) If one were to not believe in the Creator, would they be unmade? Would they suddenly have bad luck? Fall out a window and die? I don't think he's trying to suggest any of those (or at least, I'm trying not to think such), but that's what an equivalent consequence would be since he compares to ignoring gravity.
What I got out of those quotes (and some of the other text of the article) is this: if I should believe in god(s) or God because otherwise I may suffer, that's not any sort of deity which I feel deserves any belief. I've been an outcast in many different situations far too often to let my beliefs help support a religion that sets other people apart in the same way.
Rules for commenting on this post: Be respectful of the beliefs of others. I don't wish to start a religious flame war (though I think it unlikely enough people will comment for that to be likely), but I do hope for an interesting discussion.
(Before posting this I noticed that the above quote actually continues with a comparison to income tax (still exists even if one doesn't believe in it), but this doesn't seem to change the fundamental problems I have with the statement. If the Creator exists regardless whether or not I believe in it/him/her, it's only dangerous to not believe for the exact same line of reasoning as above.)
2 comments:
The comparison with gravity certainly sounds like the 'You're going to the Nether Regions if you don't believe' deal.
I suppose I can handle others believing that about me as part of their belief system, though using that to try to change people comes across to me as something akin to making a threat and not mere words of warning.
Cynically, of course, there are enough people making comparable comments that I'm sadly not surprised to hear about it.
Yes, those are the two fundamental problem with a lot of religious arguments.
1. They apply pretty equally to most religions. The fact that this gets ignored so much makes me think these arguments are either made for the benefit of people who are already more of less of the "right" religion, or by people who can't take any religion but theirs seriously.
2. The confusion of "believe" and "worship", and the whole threat issue. Even if I were convinced that God does exist and will punish me for not hating gay people, not going to church, and so on, I like to think I have enough of a backbone not to ignore my ethical principles because of threats. Again, this to me shows something strange in the thinking of people making these arguments. I'm not sure if it's "God is always right by assumption, so if we just prove he exists it'll be clear to everyone that he's right, too", or the "anyone who doesn't believe in my God must not have ethical principles in the first place", or something else.
Post a Comment