“Do you see any serious moral theory at work in the New Atheists? Where do we find their best moral ‘cogitations’?”
For Sam Harris (with whom I am the most familiar), it is a consequentialist approach. His main reason for rejecting religion is that he sees it as having more negative consequences than positive consequences (chief among them violence). To determine what is right, he similarly focuses on consequences (or possible consequences). To determine what would be right in a particular situation, the moral agent has to figure out what action would be most beneficial to the most people.
The difficulty for any such teleological approach is predicting future outcomes. We can base an action on its predicted benefits, but we can never predict the future with certainty.

Recognizing that there is no inherent meaning doesn’t mean things can’t have meaning, so Hart is dead wrong in his assertion that nihilism is an inevitability. We, individually and as a society, choose and assign meaning to the world around us. The religious are no different, for to choose a religion is to choose a set of assignments of meaning for the world around us.
This sounds like an awful book. I’m guessing it’s one of those written for Christians books, because it’s pure propaganda without any substance angrily attacking atheists. It probably sells well in that market, right? LOL!

Dave, #2,
“angrily attacking atheists” and “attacking atheism” are two different things. Did you really mean the former, or the latter. . . ?

@Dave Mauriello;
“This sounds like an awful book. I’m guessing it’s one of those written for Christian books, because it’s pure propaganda without any substance angrily attacking atheists. It probably sells well in that market, right? LOL!”
If you changed swapped Christian and atheist around you’d have a perfect description of Ditchkens’ books!

Phil: I meant both. He is attacking both, isn’t he?
Nick: Can you actually back that up, or, like Hart himself, are you merely making false assertions for an audience you figure wants to believe them?

Well Dave,
I’ve not read Harris (except his inane NYT Op-ed piece on the appointment of Francis Collins as the Director of the NIH) – but I’ve read some of Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett. When they talk ideas – or when Dawkins talks science for example, he is informative and entertaining. When he bashes religion as in The God Delusion we have pure propaganda lacking substance. And I read and interacted with that book cover-to-cover looking for the presence of any “meat.” Hitchen’s “God is not Great” is just as bad.
I think that Nick makes a good point.

Dave made a comment, then he offered a guess that is wry and clever and not very productive for conversation, and it distracts from the conversation about the substantive question we have for today: the moral “cogitation” of the new atheists.
Let’s stick to that issue and not pick on one another’s guesses. (Dave, Hart did write this book for Christians or at least it will be read mostly by Christians, which is fine in and of itself, but that issue does not materially affect the substance of his points.)

Dave Mauriello, I think you need to press the reset button on your comments. For starters, Hart’s book is published by Yale University Press.

My apologies to Scot for distracting from the point of the discussion.
Dave, yes I can offer support for that statement and if you really wish to interact with it we can do so in a more appropriate setting (i.e. via e-mail) rather than sidetracking this conversation.
As to the subject matter itself – I find in many discussions and debates with the New Atheists that they would say one or more of the following “Morality is…” statements
A) …decided by evolutionary means, i.e. What benefits the species is right.
B) …decided democratically, i.e. what the majority think is right.
C) …a subjective concept, i.e. as long as it feels good and doesn’t hurt others it’s okay
D) …based on what benefits me – i.e. if I am nice to someone they will do things for me.
E) …inbuilt as part of the human psyche and just is
It would be interesting to see if there are others people have experienced or if any New Atheists would not identify with any of these.
I recently watched part of a discussion involving Christopher Hitchens in which a member of the audience who asked quite a simple question of Hitchens: “Where do you get your sense of morality and purpose?” Hitchens mumbled a little bit and then said about 5 times, “I don’t understand the question.” After which they moved on to another question from the audience, which left me feeling rather sorry for Hitchens to be honest.

From what I remember correctly, an Objectivist would say morality is governed by an objective standard: to live as man qua man. This is the transcendent measuring stick.
They go a long way towards getting things right starting with that axiom. But in my opinion they get things right so long as the understanding of man’s value and purpose remains fixed by the Western standard, i.e., that he is made in the image of God and deserving respect, liberty and life (whether they know this is what they are expressing or not–they don’t believe they do).

“Do you see any serious moral theory at work in the New Atheists? Where do we find their best moral “cogitations”?”
I haven’t read all of them, but what I’ve seen either assumes traditional Christian morality and then asserts we can have that in a secular society or takes a moral pragmatic approach.
Neither can explain why it would be wrong (much less evil) of me to choose to do what is best (i.e., most profitable or most pleasant) for me without regard for anyone else.

From what I’ve seen and heard of the New Atheists, they seem to assume that a Christian morality, with some hedonistic adjustments around sexual ethics and the use of mood altering chemicals, is somehow a given, a natural law. They do not realize that once you abandon Christianity you also give up any right you might have to Christian ethics. Society, culture and individuals will coast along on momentum for a few generations, but eventually the logic of the atheist position will assert itself, it will wear down the momentum of traditional (no longer Christian) morality. Any truly atheist morality has to be, at its center, nihilistic. Even the assertion that “all people are created equal” is a theological assertion, not a defensible philosophical position. Once you abandon Christianity, you will, eventually, abandon all the ethics and morality, including the idea of fundamental equality between people, and all that entails.

This seems like a continuation of his thoughts in The Beauty of the Infinite–in which he basically says that postmodernism is a continuation of modernism, dependent on Nietzsche. The trouble with that book for me was while he was extremely well-read and had extremely complicated prose there was a real tendency throughout to be dismissive and reductionistic. His quest for a ‘rhetoric of peace’ was really undermined by his bombast and aggression.
This comes to mind now because of what I see in the new atheism and the intellectual responses to them. A historian of ideas, especially Hart, is putting the purely cognitive, purely reasonable, ideas out as the primary issues. The difficulty is that human life and history aren’t experienced like that. The new atheists are attacking precisely on the grounds of social and political history, not the history of ideas. The idea of Christian faith seems to be good on paper, sort of like communism, but the reality of Christians interacting in this world all too often expresses a hyper-aggressive hunt for power and control. Human nature runs up against intellectual ideas, and undermines the ideas. Meanwhile, on paper, atheism looks like it should tend towards nihilism, but there are probably a whole lot less practical atheist nihilists than religious nihilists, for whom nothing at all matters except their “relationship with God”. People get brushed aside without a second thought in the pursuit of religious zeal.
To argue against the new atheism purely from the history of ideas is really interesting, but the new atheists aren’t arguing from the same idealistic perspective of pure reason. They’re expressing a real discontent that has prompted many in Europe and here to become atheists precisely because of what they’ve seen and experienced from those purporting to have the truth of God.
Which means that Hart might very well be exactly right, and can revel in that intellectual victory, even as the new atheists sell a whole lot more books as they tap into a massive pool of immense spiritual and emotional discontent–that is excused by the veneer of intellectualism.

I’ve not read DDH apart from a few articles here and there, but I think that an important source of moral theory for (at least some) atheists is found in neuroscience. I read an article over at FaithWorld (a Reuters blog) just this morning with this opening paragraph:
“Until not too long ago, most people believed human morality was based on scripture, culture or reason. Some stressed only one of those sources, others mixed all three. None would have thought to include biology. With the progress of neuroscientific research in recent years, though, a growing number of psychologists, biologists and philosophers have begun to see the brain as the base of our moral views. Noble ideas such as compassion, altruism, empathy and trust, they say, are really evolutionary adaptations that are now fixed in our brains. Our moral rules are actually instinctive responses that we express in rational terms when we have to justify them.”
The whole blog can be found here:http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/08/11/is-a-moral-instinct-the-source-of-our-noble-thoughts/

Larry @ 12,
I’m not sure it’s as bad as all that (i.e., atheistic society will descend into some kind of nihilistic chaos). I think atheistic morality is essentially a middle-class sort of politeness. It is the morality of the Gentiles that Jesus talks about, wherein you love those who love you (the social contract) and hate those who hate you (modern conflict). It’s better than nothing, I guess, but nothing close to NT ethics. Which is fine with Ditchkins, I guess.

I spent the first 30 years of my life as an atheist and the seven years that followed in recovery learning to “turn my will and my life over to God as I understood Him.” It was not until I was 37 that I came to faith in Jesus. With that perspective in mind I offer the following anecdotal perspective. My morality as an atheist was uncentered and situational. I had a sense – from culture mostly – what was right and wrong but there was an inherant relativity to that thought. I knew that stealing was wrong – but taking money from the cash register at the restaurant where I worked was okay because they were paying me $1.00 an hour off the books which was below minimum wage. In my mind, their transgression somehow justified mine. That said, I was good to people and frequently put others first – but other times was completely selfish. As I Christian, this calculus no longer adds up and I am called to sacrifice what might be fair for what is “right” (admittedly some days better than others).
Best analogy might be as one in the woods without a compass. I was making my way, but without a perception of true north as a guide. In recovery a true north began to emerge – some principles for living that were bounded by a structure beyond my own best thinking. The progression from recovery agnosticism to Christian faith took that up a notch and provided both a structure and an accessible guide in the Holy Spirit.
All in all, each step was prompted by grace – not my best choice or best thinking. That’s why I think we need to beware when condemning “new” or any other atheists. There but for the grace of God go I…

It is the morality of the Gentiles that Jesus talks about, wherein you love those who love you (the social contract) and hate those who hate you (modern conflict).
But those gentiles where not, for the most part, atheists. They still had some idea of duty to something, or someone, outside of themselves and a sense that they were, in some sense, under judgment. The only thing restraining an atheist, if he is being true to his atheism, is the fear of the policeman on the corner (but what guides the actions of the policeman in an atheist society).

Joan Ball,
I used to be a Christian. When I was a Christian, I thought (mistakenly) that God wanted me to do evil things and that this life was a miserable test, because it is written in the Holy Bible. Now that I’m an Atheist, I lead a moral life. The golden compass that I was born with, but the Christian Faith tried to break, is whole once more and without superstition acting as a false load stone.
Let’s add up all the Atheists that used to be Christians and compare them with all the Christians that used to be Atheists; then we can compare which stacks.
I haven’t done a survey, but I would hazard a guess that most Atheists know themselves to possess a greater sense of morality after having shed the shackles of faith (faith being belief without evidence).
But I am curious. What changed your mind? It could not have been evidence, as evidence would make faith worthless.

Larry,
You need to do JUST a little bit more investigation. I’d suggest the police strike in Canada (or any other police strike for that matter) Atheists were disproportionately unrepresented in these riots. It would seem that it’s not God keeping the religious ‘good,’ it is the police.
Also, it would seem you are suggesting that the police are nothing more than ‘Armed Christians.’

“But I am curious. What changed your mind? It could not have been evidence, as evidence would make faith worthless.”
Just had a blog post related to that, Eric – on the movie “Doubt”.
If you don’t mind me asking, Eric, what sort of background did you have? It sounds fairly fundamentalist (like the Bob Jones influenced variety). I do think that there are a good many former Christians become atheist who are doing so, in a sense, to be true to their Christian convictions. They are presented with a God who sends billions into Hell due to the accident of birth, and (out of loyalty to justice and the love of one’s neighbor) must stand against such things. They know that seeking the truth with one’s whole heart is virtuous, and that one must submit to truth even if it is uncomfortable, and so reject a “faith” that looks to be based on forcing adherence to propositions under fear of punishment. Would you say this is your story, Eric?
I wouldn’t be surprised, Eric, if you and I had similar upbringings in some ways. My story is one of going into deeper faith because of these questions, rather than ultimately losing faith.

Wonders for Oyarsa,
I have never met an Atheist that denounced their faith because they were, “mad at God,” or “want to sin.” Every Atheist I’ve ever met had the superstition educated out of them.
But, I’m only speaking for myself & every Atheist ever I’ve known. I’m sure there’s one out there somewhere, just waiting to be exploited by Ray Comfort. Although, knowing Ray Comfort’s deceitful tactics I’m sure he could find someone to fake it for him, saving the time of searching.

Eric,
If speaking to me is a waste of your time, then by all means use your time more wisely. Our time is valuable, and we mustn’t squander it.

Hart, and Scot McKnight, and many here keep saying or wondering if there can be any foundation to ethical behavior for the non-theist. That professed or real ignorance is getting pretty old, as if Socrates and Plato and Aristotle…fast forward 2000 years… and A.H. Maslow and Carl Rogers, etc. had never written. Yes, there is general agreement that no absolute, a priori standard exists, even for Christians, who cherry pick their morality from the many developed in the bible. ie. kill the enemy (or sinner)…an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth… love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, and so on. The history of ethics and morality requres more semesters of study than we have here, but a good place to begin, if you don’t want to start a new degree, is Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, two highly respected humanist psychologists who describe the unfolding of human personality AND MORALITY when our basic needs are met- food, shelter, affection, and freedom of thought. The result is something very much like the Jesus Creed.
I’m no great admirer of Dawkins and the rest except in so far as they describe a Christianity that deserves the criticism they give it for not living up to Jersus’ teachings. Until Christains practice tough love and own those same criticisms, the atheists will have a field day.
Doug

Atheists were disproportionately unrepresented in these riots.
I am not arguing that atheists are immoral, or can’t act morally, but that they have no basis or warrant for their morality, and that, in time, this lack of warrant will tell out.
Also, it would seem you are suggesting that the police are nothing more than ‘Armed Christians.’
Hardly. Where in the world would you get that idea?
The continual representation of atheists as being particularly law-abiding and moral is also getting old. “Atheist” is a title that, in general only middle class or above, well educated people choose for themselves. A thug who “gots no religion” is hardly ever counted as a atheist. The self selecting aspects of this makes generalizations based on the label very suspect. Middle-class, well educated people in general are more law abiding than the overall population, regardless of whether or not they are theists. That a subset of this population would have similar tendencies is not surprising.

That professed or real ignorance is getting pretty old, as if Socrates and Plato and Aristotle…
All of whom were theists …

“Middle-class, well educated people in general are more law abiding than the overall population, regardless of whether or not they are theists. That a subset of this population would have similar tendencies is not surprising.”
A very good empirical argument for the atheist position that morals can be and are best developed through the use of human reason

Hi Doug,
I think we theists claim those three philosophers more or less in our camp. The good, the true, and the beautiful, and all that. If A.H. Maslow and Carl Rogers are appealing to that sort of thing, then all well and good (and true, and beautiful). But all I’ve ever heard (though I haven’t read these specific books) are reductionist accounts of our moral feelings, not affirmations of those feelings as grounded in binding concrete reality. If it isn’t too tiresome, would you mind summarizing their key points here for us, so we may give them a hearing?

Actually, when a book is aimed at a particular group, it is relevant, especially when that audience doesn’t appear to require things like fact supporting arguments, Scot. It helps explain why someone would argue points without warrants and also helps shape how we should take these arguments (ie – with a grain of salt, or mustard seed, depending on your side of the aisle). I don’t, however, understand what knowing the publisher has to do with the discussion.
Nick: Email me if you wish, but I don’t see how citing various theories concerning origins for morality supports your earlier comment.
ChrisB: Christianity doesn’t explain why it would be wrong for you to act negatively either. It merely tells you how you should act or else, which is not teaching regard for anyone else but yourself. Furthermore, such regard, known as empathy, is largely lacking in Christian morality due to its perversion of the Golden Rule. When it’s ” do unto others what YOU would have done onto YOU”, then everything is in your pov, and others’ pov isn’t considered.
Larry: What can I say, you’re simply wrong about nihilism, and it’s quite possible to salvage elements of morality contained in Christian morality for most of it is not exclusively Christian.
Patrick Oden: So-called “new atheism” isn’t new at all, and neither is the claim that it relies solely on the failure of organized religion or religion in practice.
Travis Greene: I disagree with your assessment, but let me make something clear – there is no such thing as a “atheistic morality”, unless you’re talking about a morality created by an atheist. I couldn’t tell if you were implying the former or the latter.
Joan Ball: What you’re contrasting is not a morality with no god belief vs a morality with god belief, but rather a near non-existent morality vs an existing morality. Your experience highlights merely how one might act without a code vs with a code which brings me again to Hart’s assertion that with Christian morality, people are inevitably nihilists. That’s simply incorrect. There are 100s of moral codes one could decide to subscribe to, just as you decided to subscribe to the Christian one.
To anyone else: Christian morals are one set of morals in a sea of moral codes. Renouncing Christianity does not necessarily mean one renounces all morality (ie – nihilism). One could of course, but even a sociopath completely devoid of empathy can see how disadvantageous that would be, so please, regardless of whether you care to agree with other moral systems, stop asserting that without subscribing to yours, one would be completely without morals. Thanks.

Sorry, that should have read ‘Hart’s assertion that WITHOUT Christian morality, people are inevitably nihilists.’

“I’m no great admirer of Dawkins and the rest except in so far as they describe a Christianity that deserves the criticism they give it for not living up to Jersus’ teachings. Until Christains practice tough love and own those same criticisms, the atheists will have a field day.”
The problem here is that the Christians are also cherry-picked and used to represent the whole. Of course there have been giant ethical errors made by those who profess to follow Christ, but there have also been some wonderfully moral, even sacrificially so, Christians throughout every age yet these are barely brought up and treated as an anomaly. Point to the crusades, but don’t point to St. Francis to convinced a king to stop his bloody tirade. Point to radical ethnic groups that promote religious-based hatred and racism but don’t point to those who stood their ground and gave their lives non-violently for the sake of peace.
What is “old” are caricatures on either side of the argument. I have yet to hear an honest engagement of the most profound examples of morality that came from a deep seated understanding of human identity as found in God. Most of the critiques have been of people who were already bent on a certain subject who waved the flag of religion (to religions detriment). This isn’t a straw-man but it is cherry picking and dishonest.

What can I say, you’re simply wrong about nihilism, and it’s quite possible to salvage elements of morality contained in Christian morality for most of it is not exclusively Christian.
So atheists are constantly asserting, but never demonstrating how this can be done. Why should I prefer love over hate? Why should I be kind to the less fortunate?

From criticism (last comment) to praise. Eric the Green wrote at the end of Athist Delusions 1-
“If only you intelligent and educated Christians would talk some sense to the sheep in your midst… You aren’t like all the other Christians. You accept evolution. You don’t see the Holy Bible as the unerring word of God. “They” use you to validate their beliefs. But never will they compromise their beliefs so that their faith emulates the more rational thoughts of Christian intellectuals.”
Eric, my friend, I have enjoyed many of your thoughtful posts. But where have you been? Scot McKnight and RJS and others here have been doing exactly what you would want, for years. They get a report card of “A” and you get an “incomplete” from missing way too many classes. And it’s not just this blog. They, Scot especially, write books, newspaper articles, Christian jounal articles, give lectures at seminaries and lead seminars. They profess “orthodoxy in the 21st century” which drives me cazy at times because so much of the discussion is a diversion from what is really important, the Jesus Creed. But how otherwise would they have any respect, any leverage as teachers among the ones you want them to teach? Here is a good analogy. Mahatma Gandhi is one of my heros. He spent a lifetime (and lost his life) trying to bring peace and goodwill to the Hindu and Muslim factions of India. He was well acquainted with Christianity, but rejected becoming a Christian although he spoke in the highest terms of Jesus’ teachings. Sure, many orthodox Chritians believe he is going to hell for that- I hope not here on this blog- but how could he have done anything else. If he had become a Christian, he would have lost all, every bit of respect and leverage, that he had as a teacher and spiritual leader of the fractious Muslims and Hindus. That was his life’s work. Possibly, I’m too quick to criticize Scot and RJS and others here, even while appreciating the educational work they are doing. And maybe you are unaware that Scot and RJS and others here are precisely the “intelligent and educated Christian” teachers you wish they were. By the way, Eric, who are your heros and role models? I think that tells us more about your morality and ethics than any professions of philosophy or theology. And who are David Bently Hart’s heros and Dawkins’ and Scots’ and RJS’. I hope that will be a future topic.
Doug

Hi Eric,
You wrote,
“I have never met an Atheist that denounced their faith because they were, “mad at God,” or “want to sin.” Every Atheist I’ve ever met had the superstition educated out of them.”
I’m not sure why you interpreted my post that way. I wasn’t talking about “anger at God”, but rather finding a cruel “good” God both reprehensible and incoherent. I certainly wasn’t talking about “wanting to sin”, but rather rejecting beliefs that were mandated under threat in order to have a free conscience.

Dave,
“Christianity doesn’t explain why it would be wrong for you to act negatively either.”
Incorrect.
“which is not teaching regard for anyone else but yourself.”
Patently false.
“When it’s “do unto others what YOU would have done onto YOU”, then everything is in your pov, and others’ pov isn’t considered.”
Heard this before; it was dumb then too. We’re not telepaths; this is the best we can do for people we don’t know.

Oh I wish I had come on this discussion earlier. I just finished reading the first entry and about half the comments.
As it is, I recently just come to a point of unbelief in my faith. I wouldn’t say atheism as I certainly didn’t find some appealing belief system that is coherent and makes sense of the world, nor do I know there is no God nor can I always make sense without one. But after a childhood of fundamentalist beliefs, and an early adulthood of evangelical to soft evangelical beliefs, I finally slid to the moderate Christian stance over the last several years, to a day and a half of liberal belief to simply unbelief. In the moderate stage, I was on this very blog, trying to salvage my faith as best I could, trying to understand Scott’s Third Way, I had personal correspondence with RJS, and after reading their books, personal correspondence with Enns and Sparks. I tried to reconcile my growing understanding of the reality of the world, our ancient history, the reality of the Bible, with a Christian faith I had held for so long. I was not as successful as the aforementioned authors at keeping my earlier beliefs.
To be clear: I one timed believed
1)Jesus is God.
2)Jesus was born a human, lived a sinless life, died on the cross and was physically resurrected back to life.
3)That this sacrifice atones for sins. I am a sinner. If I put my faith into Jesus to forgive me of my sins I would receive forgiveness.
4)At the first time I did this I received the Holy Spirit.
5)That the Bible was innerrent.
6)That everything described in the Bible was true.
I grew up in the church, so I can’t say when these beliefs solidified into my own, but held them firmly until I was about 28. Then for reasons Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig will not accept, they began to slowly erode. Not 1-4 mind you, but 5 and 6; which finally started to piece into my sacred and very strong held beliefs in the former.
Now I think
1) A great deal of the events described in the Bible did not take place as they are so described. Some of these events are outright falsified (Early Genesis), some of them are are extremely unconvincing to me given there clear literally development including conflicting versions (the Pentateuch with its various authors), a great deal of it doesn’t seem to have collaboration by other historical documentation or archeology, some of it shows clear signs of polemics , and some of it is so horrific that though certainly not proof, I sure hope it never happened.
2) There isn’t anything in the Bible that would make me think it needed a supernatural author of any kind, no real convincing prophecies nor elaboration on things humans didn’t already now at the time (such as science or history for that matter). But there is a great deal about the Bible that would lead me to think it was very much a human product, with plenty of polemics, human biases errors in history and science, outright contradictions with other portions whose writers probably never guessed would be bound together in a book centuries later, clear development in story (Mark -> Matthew/Luke; etc) and a clear development in theology and their understanding of God. The writers wrote a lot of good things (as did a lot of people from that time to our day, both religious and secular) but they were also very much a product of their time who wrote a lot of things we no longer find acceptable, and did so ascribing some of these commands to the very mouth of God.
3) That if someone wrote a miraculous story, is does not imply that it is true. That nearly all religions of all flavors wrote about miraculous things, some of them with very parallel themes to our own stories. (And this is the hard part I don’t even like to think in my head much less type but…that it is possible legends would actually develop about people being born from virgins (or fathered by Gods) and die and rise again and rise to heaven and yet these events didn’t happen. We had better believe this is true, or there are plenty of human-Gods to go around, as there were many figures in history that had some or many of these attributes applied to them. The early apologists thought they were lies from Satan, planted before Jesus because Satan knew God’s plan in advance. That might be true. Or maybe the mindset of the people who spread the legends and eventually penned them was very similar.
4) That we don’t live in a miraculous world. That if God was doing miraculous things, He decided to quit. Oh, this is no proof he didn’t do them in the past. It might make us suspicious though, as miraculous stories abounded in the ancient world among all religions, and still abound in the parts of the world suggestible to these things. But they seemingly disappear among places more influenced by the enlightenment, scientific scrutiny, and education. Is this just a coincidence?
5) That my previous faith could be true. That I could arm myself with enough apologetics, harmonizations, rationalizations, excuses for why God seems absent (as Ann attempted with Eric in the first post), to continue my belief, but that I must admit the world also is indistinguishable from one where there is no history-interacting God and most of the stories describing such in the Bible are born of legend, polemic, national pride, and sometimes outright fraud. This to say, when I am approached by an atheist, I have no actual evidence to show them, or anything that really separates me from the better represented and articular believers of other faiths. But they have plenty to show me. A clear history of common descent with out species, no time in history when there were only 8 remaining survivors and that a mere 4 thousand years ago(!), clear evidence in development in our theology both as the Bible was written and even in church history, etc.
My name is not Jason. RLS knows my real name because I emailed with my real address and highliged such. I also put my real email in the slot, as it said it would not be published but I don’t mind if Scott has access to it. I write under a false name because I would cause a lot of family pain and tension if they were to discover what I now believe. Life is to short for that.
I think it might be good for me to write up my personal journey, struggles, and beliefs. I am just such a poor writer and take forever to get my thoughts on paper. Perhaps I could write something that could be posted here. Knowing someone would eventually read it might help motivate me to make it happen, which I think would be a good exercise for myself (and hey, maybe I would have something important to say). As is I would never show such to my family. Writing in front of fundies would simply stir the normal backlash (and accusations I never really believed) and writing to a more skeptical crowd would simply be preaching to the choir. I came to this blog to salvage my faith and it didn’t happen so far, but if it will it will probably be into the beliefs of a community such as this one.

Hi Eric: I am sorry that you felt called to “do evil things and that this life was a miserable test” when you were a Christian. That must have been a very unfortunate and frightening experience. I have not had that experience and cannot speculate how I might react if I did. So far the things I have felt “called” to do have been within the bounds of what I would have perceived to be ethical before my conversion and after.
I cannot speak to the golden compass you were born with either. I can only say that I was not born with one. I don’t feel very superstitious about the Christian faith. In fact, since coming to believe I have encountered many people who identify themselves as Christians and wonder how my interpretation of this as a liberating faith contrasts so decidedly with the rules and regulations many of my new brothers and sisters choose to follow.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Christian to atheist numbers are huge. I have spent a lot of time reading about and conversing with the folks on deconversion.com about their journeys away from the faith – one that I believe free will allows if we choose to walk in the other direction. As for what changed my mind…the question itself presumes that I made a decision. I did not. In 2003, without asking, praying, seeking or wanting it. Without being down on my luck or emotionally tired, sitting on an executive salary in a happy marriage with happy, healthy kids, this Christian-basher had an old school knock-down conversion to faith. I cannot explain it, but also cannot deny it – nor can I deny the fact that it was and continues to be a transformative experience. I am not the same person I was on that morning in 2003. Those who knew me then and know me now can attest to that. I’m sure it will be hard for you to believe, since half the time I can’t believe it myself and I am the one who lived it. I just keep following and things keep changing – some for the worse (I have lost most of what I had when I started – career, money, title) and others for the better. I still don’t know where I fit in this rather fractured faith, but kind of like a pilot whose plane goes down on an island. I may not feel like I fit, but here I am.
Sorry for the long response, I couldn’t think of a more succinct way to respond.

Hi Joey and Wonders of Oyarsa, Unapologetic Catholic,
Joey,
You’re absolutely right Dawkins et al cherry-pick in trying to make Christians look bad. Unfortuately there is a lot to be picked from, and that needs to be owned, I think.
Wonders,
Gosh, that’s asking a lot. I just googed Carl Rogers and read the first two documents that came up. Please do same. There’s something called developmental psychology that my wife (and I bet your wife, Scot) knows a lot about. I did graduate work in psychology and became very fond of the Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow schools of developmental, humanistic psychology. They expanded Piaget’s thesis of childhood development of motor and cognitive skills when given a nurturing environment to a theory of hierachical needs and lifelong development which, under satisfactory conditions of meeting needs, results in the development of aesthetic and spiritial selves and a morality which changes from eye for eye… to utilitarian… to Jesus Creed -like. All of this takes place without religious instruction although religion can be a helpful or a harmful part of the process.
Unapologtic Catholic,
You sure add a lot of light to the conversation, and I hope you continue contributing.
Doug

Hi Dave: You wrote:
“Joan Ball: What you’re contrasting is not a morality with no god belief vs a morality with god belief, but rather a near non-existent morality vs an existing morality. Your experience highlights merely how one might act without a code vs with a code which brings me again to Hart’s assertion that with Christian morality, people are inevitably nihilists. That’s simply incorrect. There are 100s of moral codes one could decide to subscribe to, just as you decided to subscribe to the Christian one.”
You are on the money except for one thing — I had no desire to choose a code. In fact, when I came to Christian faith my life was spectacular. I had everything I had ever dreamed of and more. No good reason to go this way…no desire to go this way. In fact, after I came to faith I was pretty embarrased since I had pounded Christians as weak sheep who were unable to make a decision or succeed without the crutch of faith for so long that having to admit that I now believed what I had believed was drivel was beyond humbling.

Joan, Jason,
Thank you for sharing your personal journeys to and away from faith. I read every word. Jason, as long as you are still coming to this blog to read and to post I believe that you are still looking for something. My own story doesn’t go as far in either direction. I was not raised in a fundamentalist way and I never left my faith behind–but in my middle age I did start to wonder and doubt and listen to voices who spoke in much less orthodox ways. What brought me back, stronger than I ever was before was reading through the entire Bible for the first time. I consider this my turning point. The more I read my Bible the more I understand grace. I’m thankful to Scot for his books and for this blog where very deep discussions can take place with very little of the “bashing” of each other that I find on blogs that I no longer frequent.

“Joey,
You’re absolutely right Dawkins et al cherry-pick in trying to make Christians look bad. Unfortuately there is a lot to be picked from, and that needs to be owned, I think.”
Owned, and called what it is: wrong. I don’t deny that horrible things have been done in the name of many religions. What I deny is that religion was the cause. Any form of fanaticism can be called religious, but it is fanaticism, not religion that is the problem. Under religion fanatics might find a flag to wave or a justification of their actions but it isn’t unique to religion. Take PETA for example. Or maybe not PETA, but people who are claim to be under the banner of PETA who kill humans or do acts of terrorism medical testing facilities. PETA isn’t the problem, it’s just the banner waved for justification.
Scripture can be a very dangerous group of writings if not considered thoughtfully and with humility – and more importantly in community. There are lots of things in scripture that are incredibly complex that are read and used as justifications for some horrible atrocities. That is one of the charges that Christians need to take seriously – to create and expect a culture of thoughtful discernment, especially in regards to scripture. And, I would argue, that most Christian traditions find themselves in a place where they have thoughtfully discerned and though they may be wrong or misled at some point or another, overall they’re religion provides for them a moral framework, even though morality is not the purpose of Christianity. There are other groups, though, that have bred a culture of fanatics and unfortunately practice their filth under the same banner, using the same language, and the same books. It is a shame. Not the rule, but a shame.

Just as I think the atheist argument that the Bible defines Pi as 3.o and therefore to be disregarded, I find it equally silly to suggest that atheists cannot develop a moral system in the absence of some divine input.
There are suggestions that Christianity and all religions rely on some form of natural law and not on the unmediated whims of mere humans. The problem with this argument is that Natural Law may not exist and even if it does, we can glimpse it only through a glass darkly–as scripture itself notes.
Which of the following conduct does the Bible describe approvingly:
a. polygamy
b. genocide
c. human child sacrifice
d. trafficking in human sex slaves
The answer, of course, is “all of the above.” That doesn’t mean the Bible is to be ignored or has nothing to contribute on morals. It does mean that human reason must be applied to the language of the Bible to determine the scope of natural law.
I would suggest that Christians who analyze the Bible to determine that Natural Law prohibits human child sacrifice despite biblical approval are actually using the same skill–human reason unaided by divine intervention– that atheists use to develop a moral code. I recognize the considerable exegesis over the centuries to properly interpret perhaps difficult or unfortunate biblical passages. But that particular skill is more a function of logic and, frankly, sometimes rejection of the plain language of the text. Even after several centuries, not all Christians can agree with the various interpretations and whole or partial rejections of the text. We do indeed see through the glass darkly. Any claim that natural law is well established by scripture is misplaced.
The foundation of any moral code is some form of the Golden Rule. That principle was not original with Christianity or unique to it and is easily ascertainable as a good idea without recourse to any divine beings.

Jason @35
Just an observation: Most of the time when I hear or read about people who come to a point of un-belief or ?loosing their faith? they always describe it an ?negative event?, or a ?downslide?, why is that? What inside them is saying this? Also Jason; even though I don?t share your un-beliefs I admire that you are saying what you think is true. It is not my place, but I would encourage you to tell your family/ friends even if you think it might cause them pain. From what I hear, and based off of first hand experience Satan or the evil one (or whatever you want to call him) loves when we keep things a secret. It might hurt your family if they knew your feelings but painful truth is better un-truthful nothingness. If in front of your friends and family you put up a front that you still believe then I think you will feel spiritually dead inside and will be even less likely to believe. I?ve found that pretending to be something your not (even if it is a believer) is a sure fire way to feel like you don?t exist. I suppose sharing your thoughts with people on a blog is a good start, but it?s not the same as being around people who you can share these feelings with (share this with God also). I also admire the fact that you?re even at this blog site. I have a friend who is an atheist and who will ask me to explain my faith, or the bible. However if I cited anything from the Bible or a book by a Christian he would call my beliefs ?null and void? because they come from a Christian source. So I?m happy that you?re even listening and not shutting yourself up in a room with nothing but books by Dawkins or Hitchens.
Also just a side note: when you said: ?when I am approached by an atheist, I have no actual evidence to show them, or anything that really separates me from the better represented and articular believers of other faiths. But they have plenty to show me.?
I?ve found that we as Christians don?t have ?concrete? evidence. Meaning I can?t prove Christianity to you with math or physically show it to you, but they can?t do this with any other belief system, including atheism. Also science cannot prove or disprove God and if you?ve been led to believe that they can, then you?ve been misled. To put it simply we may not have all the answers but neither do they.

Larry: No, it’s that I addressed why you were wrong here before you even left your comment, so why rehash? As for your questions, they would require responses which I think exceeds the scope and intent of this comment section, but feel free to email me. The address is on my site.
ChrisB: I think Larry’s comment should be for you. You know, the bit about “constantly asserting, but never demonstrating”. Nice job.
Joan: The fact that you had no desire to choose a moral code prior to choosing Christianity’s code is unfortunate, but I don’t see that lack of desire as being due to being an atheist before. Oh, and I’m often embarrassed about needing late night snacks and ice cream treats to make me happy. I was once a serious athlete who trained hard and watched what he ate and pounded those with weaker wills who relied on such crutches, so I can relate to your current, humbling state.
Joey: It’s not the misuse of religion, but religion itself which I find a problem but I agree with you that fanaticism is a problem in all things. The issue is irrational behavior, and when you engage in something that’s fundamentally irrational, well, I think it’s that much more likely to lead people to those extremes you described. That’s why rather than evangelizing for atheism, I evangelize for rational, critical thinking. In fact, I’ve sadly encountered some irrational atheists. Irrationality can rear its ugly head anywhere if people aren’t careful.

Josh,
respectfully, I think Jason telling his friends and family at this point would be very unhelpful. He is not keeping his experience/thoughts/beliefs secret; quite the opposite. He put them up here on this blog.
Jason,
I am grateful for your trust. I am so sorry, more than I can express, for the painful difficulties you are having. I understand about getting tired of making excuses for god.
I’m still a Christian, but I went through some unsettling months/years re-evaluating almost all of it, and I’m not where I was when I started…
Sending you a hug.
Dana

Dave @ 43 implied that Christianity is “fundamentally irrational” and that he (and he uses the word “evangelize”) promotes “rational, critical thinking”. Well–the Christians here on the Jesus Creed blog all evangelize for rational, critical thinking all the time.

Hi Jason,
I appreciate and admire your sharing of your journey, and I’m sorry you’re in pain becaue you can not share it with friends and family. From past experience, this is a very good group with which to share your doubts and your pain. Whether your spiritual jourmey continues away from Christianity or back toward it or to some other religion, share it with us here. Your remarks jogged my memory to a few things that we’ve all heard, but are worth repeating. One is the spiritual advisor saying, “Jason, what God don’t you believe in because I probably don’t believe in him either.”
On a different level, I think there may be one thing in the Bible that could not have been written (and modelled) by mere humans. The beatitudes,the parables, the other well know sayings of Jesus and especially his modelling of a love, compassion, and inclusion are so foreign to his tribe, to his time, and to human nature, if you will. Maybe there is that one thing in the Bible that is miraculous? Sure, the writers of the synoptic gospels and even moreso, John and Paul, had their own agendas, but Jesus’ amazing words and actions still come through clearly and stand as testimony to faith in a God and religion very unlike the convenant religion of the Jews with its 635 laws and sadly, in my opinion, unlike the Christianity that Paul, John, and especially the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, etc. shaped. Jason, if you want to read about the Jesus I just alluded to and a version of Christianity that might help you in your journey, read Marcus Borg’s “Meeting Jesus Again for The First Time.” And then read Scot’s “Jesus Creed” again. And Jason, if you want to read one of the most spiritual books ever written, read Hermann Hesse’s “Siddartha” and you will understand something about Buddhism and morality that no dictionary could define. Another very good and moral, but didactic book is Martin Buber’s “I and Thou.” There are many other beautifully moral and compassionate spiritual paths including the humanism of the wonderful men like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow whom I mentioned in an earlier post. Jason, I came to this blog in good faith wondering if I might take the Christian path. That did not happen, but I have come to call myself a follower of Jesus. The journey continues for us all, and I wish you well.
Doug

Ok–The paragraph below really has my attention. I have not read your Finding Faith yet, but this causes me to want to explore the subject of “freedom” even more. Interesting how he connects this with the New Atheism.
“…His answer: “the largely preconscious (or, at any rate, prerational) will of Western humanity toward the values of modernity and toward — more specifically — the modern understanding of human freedom” (20). In his view, New Atheism is rooted in a fideistic commitment to freedom. When I wrote Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy this was my conclusion: that those who walked from the faith were walking into what they believed was freedom or independence from authority.”

@Jason #33:
You said, “5) That my previous faith could be true. That I could arm myself with enough apologetics, harmonizations, rationalizations, excuses for why God seems absent (as Ann attempted with Eric in the first post), to continue my belief, but that I must admit the world also is indistinguishable from one where there is no history-interacting God and most of the stories describing such in the Bible are born of legend, polemic, national pride, and sometimes outright fraud.”
Since you brought me into this conversation, I’m wondering why you believe I made excuses, harmonized or rationalized for God? (as if I could, for one thing…) Given that I don’t rationalize or excuse the seeming absence of God, this assertion about me was a puzzler. Now, if you asked me why God seems absent, for instance, to the women and girls of the eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or certain rural regions of Pakistan, I could speak to that, if you’d like me to do so.

Jason #35,
I struggle a bit thinking through many of the issues we discuss here about ideas of “harmonizations, rationalizations, excuses.”
So much of “detail” of the way the faith is taught in the usual evangelical or fundamentalist, or other church is simply untrue. So is there any truth in the mix or is an attempt to find truth in the mix simply a result of an unwillingness to leave?
Having thought about these issues for many years, I have come to the conclusion that we must be able to talk about doctrine and scripture and history with a willingness to see the “humanness” in much of what has come down to us – but also an eye to look for a thread “from God.” I doubt that it will satisfy you at this point. But I don’t see this as all or nothing.
Of course I also get some e-mails from people who claim that by being forthright on what science (for example) actually does show I am “contributing to loss of faith” and a damaging influence. But ignoring the elephant in the living room does no good at all.
Peace.

Thank you for everyone who responded.
Barb (39) Jason, as long as you are still coming to this blog to read and to post I believe that you are still looking for something.
I’m looking for the truth. I want to know if there is any validity to my faith and if it is true I certainly don’t want to miss it.
Josh (42): Just an observation: Most of the time when I hear or read about people who come to a point of un-belief or ?loosing their faith? they always describe it an ?negative event?, or a ?downslide?, why is that? What inside them is saying this?
I think that is a poor generalization. I have read many many stories of people of various parts of a journey either gaining or losing faith, and for those losing it there is a wide spectrum of how they perceive the process/ results. For some it is very hard, some it is easy, some take forever, some change very abruptly, some are much a happier in the final state and seem feel they lost something.
But what I feel I gain or lose emotionally has no bearing on what I am ultimately convinced is true. It might have made the world a simpler place when I scoffed at evolution, but ultimately that is no excuse to deny something that is true. When I was five, I didn’t know about child molesters, famine, or cancer. I was much happier not knowing, but learn I did.
Also Jason; even though I don?t share your un-beliefs I admire that you are saying what you think is true. It is not my place, but I would encourage you to tell your family/ friends even if you think it might cause them pain.
To be clear, my wife and I are on the same page so there is no hiding there. My extended family all live several states away, so I don’t have a lot of contact with them and am not going to be daily hiding this; though a few holidays might get interesting. A lot of my friends are non-believers and this has little relevance. The only real issue is the slow withdrawal from my church community. I would like to still be friends but when you make the Christian faith the center of you relationship it leaves little that can be your relationship post-faith. And finally, several people in the church do know.
Meaning I can?t prove Christianity to you with math or physically show it to you, but they can?t do this with any other belief system, including atheism. Also science cannot prove or disprove God and if you?ve been led to believe that they can, then you?ve been misled. To put it simply we may not have all the answers but neither do they.
I agree, they can not prove or disprove God. They admit this themselves. Hence why their bus adds say ?There probably is no God?. I have not read Dawkins book, but I believe one of his chapter titles was something like ?Why there most likely is no God?. Someone can correct me.
No, science can not disprove God, but every time we make a factual claim about how God interacts in the world science can indeed validate such a claim. If we say God created the world in in such a such a manner, science can explore that. If we believe you are more likely to heal if you pray for healing, science can validate that claim as well. None of this would disprove that a God exists, but at what point do we have to admit to ourselves we have no evidence that He exists or that the world seems indistinguishable from if He didn’t.
I want concrete evidence in God’s existence. Why would that not be provided? If a literal eternity of torment where at stake, why is God so shy about revealing Himself. He certainly wasn’t in the past, or so says the written stories of the Bible. I want concrete evidence so that I have something more then Muslims have, or Hindus, or any other belief system with its own history and inspired texts but no actual physical evidence that any of it has any basis in reality. Its not satisfying for me anymore to claim that God revealed Himself in the Bible because quite clearly not only is it possible that who ever wrote was not inspired by God to do so, but as I posted initially it seems that is the very case. Either way, I have to acknowledge a text could be written, revered, believed to be inspired by God, and yet not be true; because I do so with every other religious text in existence (even works so close to my own that Catholics still revere them).
Doug (46): Thank you for the book recommendations. I might look into them. They have to be at my library though, I can’t afford to buy any more books:(
Ann (48): Since you brought me into this conversation, I’m wondering why you believe I made excuses, harmonized or rationalized for God?
Excuse is a poor choice of words if only because of its strong negative connotations. I was referring to the first thread: Eric in (42) asks for some sort of interaction with God akin to what Paul received or any of the disciples (who the Bible states Jesus convinced through many signs and wonders before and especially after the resurrection). You answer in (45). First you claim Eric wouldn’t get one because it is a dare, neither of which was the attitude of Saul or Thomas: though Thomas did ask for evidence. A lot of scientists joke he should be the patron saint of science. In the second paragraph you seem to imply things from God are inner yearnings . I’ll quote you exactly on the next part. ?If you have need of none of God, why should you expect God to be present to you or to appear to you? Wouldn’t you seek reasons to explain God or the sign or the miracle out of existence, anyway??. Here you once again explain why there will be no evidence offered from God. Before I continue, Eric answered your assertion here that he would indeed be convinced and not explain it anyway and so would I. If Jesus shows up at my door tomorrow I would fall on my knees and worship. You continue ?I *think* most of us here believe in a God who serves in love, not a god who trounces unbelievers with sure-fire proof they aren’t looking for, anyway.?
Eric asks for evidence, and you give him a whole bunch of reasons why he will get no evidence. This is what I was referring to as ?excuses for why God seems absent ?. Listen, what you are saying COULD BE TRUE!, this very well might be why Eric will never have any experience with God. But notice it is also it is also indistinguishable from there being no God for Eric to experience.
RJS (49): Having thought about these issues for many years, I have come to the conclusion that we must be able to talk about doctrine and scripture and history with a willingness to see the “humanness” in much of what has come down to us – but also an eye to look for a thread “from God.” I doubt that it will satisfy you at this point. But I don’t see this as all or nothing.
I agree it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. I certainly tried this middle ground while working through the works of Sparks. I guess part of the problem is that all of a sudden it just all seems so human.
As for whether we should talk freely about the humanness of scripture, I guess that depends on your audience. That would probably simply kill the faith of many in my church. And indeed, look at me! And yet, that is the only way I can talk now, so I wish we had been more open about it in the past. Perhaps if I had grown up in a more liberal setting the outcome might be different. I can’t fellowship with my church any longer because this is definitely not an open topic.
Of course I also get some e-mails from people who claim that by being forthright on what science (for example) actually does show I am “contributing to loss of faith” and a damaging influence. But ignoring the elephant in the living room does no good at all.
Evolution definitely needs to be picked up by some serious conservative theologians and integrated into our traditions because its true, and the education on this matter is getting better. With better resources, the internet, etc: eventually the truth will become more well known. If Christianity continues put up an all or nothing barrier on this point it is going to continue to lose its more educated adherents.
I always appreciate your responses RJS, thank you for taking the time.

Jason (#35 & 50): Jason, seriously, if you perceive God as acting the way you (mis)represented my words in the Atheist Delusions #1 posting… yikes.
This is what you said here in #50 about me: “You answer in (45 [in Atheist Delusions 1]). First you claim Eric wouldn’t get one because it is a dare, neither of which was the attitude of Saul or Thomas…”
Then, you’ve mixed up posts chronologically and have me responding to something Eric said later with my words from an earlier post. Was that cynical manipulation of my words for an agenda, or unintentional?
This is what I asked in that post (although I forgot to include the question mark in my punctuation!):
“Is it ok to understand your 2 and 2a as a “dare” or something akin to “show me a sign!” Because neither Saul nor Thomas seemed to have had that approach, although there are others to whom Jesus refused a sign on the grounds that they wouldn’t receive it, anyway. In other words, it seems to me the fundamental attitude and perspective differs between believers and unbelievers.” (Subsequently, I offered Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount as reflecting how we may receive God and one another.)
You’re not completely misunderstanding what I said, though. I do perceive the God I worship as being unknowable and unprovable to people who demand that God reveal himself, to those who arrogantly assert their intellect or will over others made in God’s image, who twist others into an image in service of their own agenda, who willfully act in ways contrary to how Jesus and the Holy Spirit reveal the Father, who expect others to bow to their assessments of reality, who treat others with disrespect and partiality because of disparities in wealth, education or accomplishment, race, gender, ethnicity… In other words, the God who humbly emptied Godself to serve humans in Jesus may never be known to those who demand other humans worship & serve them. I think Joan’s testimony (and my own) indicate that God will reveal Godself to some, for purposes perhaps never known by us in this life. Nevertheless, what is “concrete” to either one of us would likely be dismissed by you.
I’ve spent a lot of my life working with victims of abuse. Why don’t they see God in the midst of the abuse, physical and verbal harm? The answer I submit is that God’s image isn’t present or is *NOT* visible in the people who are treating them so awfully. Yet, all the abuse victims I’ve asked will say they “know” on some level that God wouldn’t treat them as these image-bearers are doing. Being made in the image of God is an awe-full responsibility. Failing to bear God’s holy and loving image to one another is normative, and impossible to do consistently, except when one has died to self and is empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Thus, I suggest this possibility to you: if your family has asserted its certainty and knowledge of their “god” over others in a manner that disrespects, demeans and condemns others to eternal torment, your perception of how “god” acts is directly related to what you’ve witnessed image-bearers doing and claiming.
Your response to me indicated that you interpreted me as asserting myself over “Eric” when I was not, so I don’t think I’m totally off-the-mark in suggesting that possibility. From my perspective, you’ve “made” me into the image of something/someone I’m not. If all the image-bearers in your family/life have modeled this treatment and judging of others, then it becomes really difficult and confusing to discern the God who doesn’t treat others that way. Especially when anyone is claiming that “god” as certainty, and modeling an idol looking and acting like themselves.
Finally, I may be heretical in your family’s sight, but I don’t perceive hell as they do. I’ve wondered if we’re not living in hellishness now – surrounded by all these false-god-image-bearers misrepresenting themselves as true-God-image-bearers, and punishing others according to their own idolatry.

Ann,
I must admit you got me extremely confused at the moment. I’ll answer as best I can. I don’t see how I am mixing up the chronology of the posts. I am only referring to two posts and I quoted or paraphrased your answer entirely out of …okay now I see the confusion. I wasn’t quoting you to respond to what Eric says later. I was continuing to quote you answering why Eric might not get what he wanted. My aside about Eric’s later answer was to just highlight that your statement Wouldn’t you seek reasons to explain God or the sign or the miracle out of existence, anyway? was answered by Eric in the negative, he would not try to explain it away and neither would I. When I returned to quoting you I was back on my original point. I can see how that is confusing.
And my point still stands. Indeed you continue I do perceive the God I worship as being unknowable and unprovable to people who demand that God reveal himself. I’m not sure why you use the word demand here. Why would God not want to make Himself known? That is exactly what He did, in the person of Jesus, complete with miracles to prove it was true. He sent fire from the sky to prove to Elijah’s contemporaries that He was God. He explicitly states the plagues are to prove to the Egyptians and indeed the whole world who is truly God.
Your response to me indicated that you interpreted me as asserting myself over “Eric” when I was not
Okaaaay, I must admit I didn’t follow everything you wrote or see how it relates to my post. And I don’t know what you mean by “asserting myself over Eric”. All I was trying to say was this. Eric wants to know the evidence for God, on the same level that seems to have been the norm in the past. Surely, if the past were true, and not just made up, this would be readily available. Since we don’t actually have an answer, instead we offer a lot of reasons why the world looks exactly as if there isn’t an interacting God as described in the Bible, usually blaming the lack of evidence on the seeker himself (wrong attitude, to arrogant, wouldn’t believe it anyway, etc). I’m not going to do that anymore.

Jason, FWIW, I am not “blaming the lack of evidence on the seeker himself.” I’m reporting what is psychologically verifiable – that we project our thoughts, emotions, difficulties onto others (including any god). We also transfer those feelings we are familiar with onto others, and we may experience counter-transference, too, when another makes us into someone we’re not in their own mind. This is why people with poor or absent fathers have a hard time perceiving God the Father as “other” than their father, or folks with rigid parents assume any god is rigid, too. (simplistic examples)
If cultural and/or educational assumptions and measuring sticks are added on top of psychological issues, it is very hard for that person to wade through all the muck to perceive this self-emptying, serving and patiently loving God. I do believe that the Spirit of God is reaching out to people wherever they are, though, through those around them who are imaging God well. It’s amazing and saddening how many times I’ve seen people who misunderstand God flatly dismiss those who really are loving them, though.
I used the verb, “demand”, because it represents a human antithesis of the attitudes of those Jesus called “blessed” in the Sermon on the Mount.
Haven’t you ever noticed that liars don’t believe others aren’t lying, too? That political manipulators assume others manipulate and undermine as well?
Yes, God can and does break through those barriers by the power of the Spirit! I’d guess that God prefers to employ loving and godly people around them to testify to a different way, but we also don’t know how many times people bearing God’s image have been outright attacked or harmed by them.
You wonder about why past signs aren’t visible in the present in this statement: “Surely, if the past were true, and not just made up, this would be readily available. Since we don’t actually have an answer, instead we offer a lot of reasons why the world looks exactly as if there isn’t an interacting God as described in the Bible…”
Perhaps re-reading the gospels and considering the times the Pharisees, lawyers, etc., missed the present signs Jesus had just done, might be enlightening? (e.g., Matthew 12, Matthew 16, Mark I don’t think what you’re complaining about is new. Some people welcome and receive God and others made in God’s image, and some simply won’t. I can’t explain that, and Paul said we shouldn’t try. (Romans 9)