I used to be paralyzed by fear. Not in all ways, but in some.

As a college student I was so afraid that God might not be real that I refused to hear any arguments against him, in case they were really convincing. I was also afraid that my perspective on the Bible was totally wrong, so I avoided any positions that might be convincing.

Well, after reading both positions for and against God, and Biblical positions I agree with and that I disagree with, I realized that my fears were unfounded. Since then I’ve dived in and pursued every differing position I could (that seemed worth the time).

Why did I lose my fear, you ask? Because of quotes like this:

There are two ways in which scripture might be a source of morals or rules for living. One is by direct instruction, for example through the Ten Commandments, which are the subject of such bitter contention in the culture wars of America’s boondocks. The other is by example: God, or some other biblical character, might serve as - to use the contemporary jargon - a role model. Both scriptural routes, if followed through religiously (the adverb is used in its metaphoric sense but with an eye to its origin), encourage a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find - I can put it no more gently - obnoxious…

In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literally. According to Gallup, they include approximately 50 per cent of the US electorate. Also, no doubt, many of those Asian holy men who blamed the 2004 tsunami not on a plate tectonic shift but on human sins, ranging from drinking and dancing in bars to breaking some footling sabbath rule. Steeped in the story of Noah, and ignorant of all except biblical learning, who can blame them?

He follows the second one with some lines about people who have blamed natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, on sin. That’s a good argument against religion, particularly Christianity: the fallibility of humans. We always claim that all Christians are perfect, therefore anything a Christian says or does that is wrong, such as blaming natural disasters on the sin of those who are affected, reflects the beliefs and positions of the whole of Christendom.

Uh, no. And, though he asserts it to be true, the system of morals found in the Bible is not something that “any civilized modern person…would find…obnoxious.” In response I assert that no intelligent or well educated, civilized, modern person would take seriously a book about religion written by a (pop) scientist with no theological training. Particularly if said book has a shiny silver cover.

Here’s another:

“You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it’s wrong to say therefore we don’t need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don’t need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

Why is the burden of proof on the believer? The belief existed first, so, logially, the burden should be on the one questioning the established belief. We see this over and over within Christianity where the burden of proof is on the challenger of the traditional position. Those, like Luther, who have Scriptural evidence succeed; those who do not, like Marcion, fail.

Dawkins also asserts that by showing the possibility of God to be very very small, he creates an argument that is indefensible. But someone tell me this: what are the odds of random elements combining in a pool and spontaneously becoming life? Is it repeatable? Seems pretty unlikely.

These are all reasons I’m no longer afraid.

Fear drives us. What I think drives a lot of people like Dawkins is a fear that God may be real. They worry about what will happen to them or their friends if God is real and they don’t believe, so they go into denial about the possibility. The same could, of course be said of believers, but that doesn’t bother me. The real difference is found in a personal encounter with God. If you’ve never had one, you’re almost incapable of understanding why someone would choose belief over unbelief.

But since I’ve had encounters with God, and have a relationship with Christ, I understand the choices I’m making. The difference between the two is as stark as the difference between Saul overseeing the stoning of Stephen and Paul sweeping across Macedonia proclaiming Christ.

Peter Berkowitz has more to say.

Adam’s Blog reviews a book, The Minor Protection Act, about what could result from the new new atheists crusade.

Technorati Tags: atheist, bible, christ, christian, civilized, culture_wars, dawkins, fallibility, fear, gallup, god, god_delusion, holy_men, jesus, luther, marcion, morals, noah, paul, religiously, role_model, saul, stephen, theologian, Theology, theoloigical

Share your thoughts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website