Over the past few weeks I've had a couple of friendly debates with my dad about the existence of God. My responses have been purely in terms of objections to arguments in favor of God's existence—not once have I gone on the offensive. My intention is not to beat them over the head with my unbelief, but since they're challenging my views, it only makes sense to challenge theirs as well. I'd like to make them think, to inform them of some of the more unsavory parts of their religion. It may seem strange to believers that atheists might want to change their views, but when beliefs have negative consequences, it's only natural to challenge them.
A while back I came up with a list of 10 questions for Christians. I've been thinking about expanding on them, so I've embarked on the 40 Questions Project to come up the best thought-provoking challenges to fundamentalist Christianity. The questions that I'm using will:
- Address the beliefs of fundamentalist evangelical Christians
- Be succinct, with no more than a couple of sentences of setup
- Avoid provoking a flippant response (e.g. "But evolution is wrong.")
- Give specific examples when necessary (e.g. for Bible contradictions)
- Mix subtle self-reflection with direct challenges to belief
- Be comprehensive, ranging from general problems with theism to issues with specific fundamentalist doctrines
I don't think I'll be breaking any new ground with this list of questions. My goal is just to combine the most difficult issues within Christianity into one concise, accessible package. It will bring together everything from the problem of evil to historical errors in the Bible. Here's one example of a question I'll be including in some form:
"If God asked you to kill your child in the same way he did with Abraham, would you?"
I realize that what I find challenging and thought-provoking, others may find trivial, so I plan to go through a couple of drafts after getting feedback from those around me. Depending on how the project turns out and how discussions are going with my parents, I may or may not present it to them directly. Either way, I hope this can serve as a resource both for myself and for my fellow nonbelievers.
If any of my readers have suggestions for questions that might be suitable for this project—ones that will really challenge Christians and make them think—I'd love to hear from you in the comments.
You could probably put the "prayer is useless" position into the form of a question, based on the flow-chart you posted a couple of article ago.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the one question that I've seen cause the most squirming is Christ's promise to return before the last of his generation had passed. The apologetics around this must be seen to be believed.
Lurker111
I was considering including both of those, actually, and now I definitely will. Thanks for the input!
Delete^ Lurker111, do you have scripture to back up what you say about Christ promising to return before the last of his generation had passed?
ReplyDeleteNKjr.
Here are 10 questions to ponder:
ReplyDelete1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from ( gravity, inertia, etc.)
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
7. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? Does the animal have a drive to survive? How could this be explained?
10. How can mutations create any new, improved varieties?
If you can produce any empirical evidence for these questions, you might begin to scratch the surface of supporting atheism.
-NKjr.
NKjr, are you seriously trying to start with the god of the gaps argument? Ok, I'll bite anyway :)
ReplyDeletefirst three are answered by two words: big bang. If you'd do a bit of reading on the subject you'd understand why. Explaining them in detail would take a few books worth of text to fully understand it (you'd need to know quite a alot about physics, more than gets taught in first few years in univercity).
4 - what's so perfect about the organization? Pretty much anywhere I'd go in the universe I'd be dead if not in an instant then at most a couple of minutes. Vast majority of matter is not in planets or stars. Black holes that gobble up a whole lot of stuff don't look like all that nice arrangement either
5 - what do you mean by "organizing"? If you meant the forming of stars and other stellar objects then that's easy - gravity. Also, all the energy in the universe was created in the big bang (e=mc^2 and all that)
6 - Current scientific theory is that it began by forming of a bunch of self-replicating molecules. Similar things have been found in interstellar space and in comets. Pretty much only thing stopping from life forming there is rather harsh environment. When and where, on Earth it started a few billions of years ago. Why? Why not?
7 - How is this question any different from last?
8 - You do realize that evolution doesn't work in big leaps but gradual changes? Sexual reprodutction didn't occur overnight but over a very long period of time with gradual changes. Basically, think about this text: http://i.imgur.com/vlGpV.png
9 - if a specie doesn't multiply others will and thus overwhelm others. Basically there is a constant power-struggle going on in the nature. And yes, animals do have a drive to survive. If they didn't they'd die out pretty fast :)
10 - It does occasionally, not always.
Though I do admit we don't know every minor detail for every scientific theory but what I don't understand is why should not knowing something immediately mean that some diety is "at fault" of it existing. Big bang and the origin of universe was not know as late as about 100 years ago. Evolution a bit longer. Give it time and we'll figure out ways to explain the other gaps in our knowledge and I can assure you, it won't need the existence of a creator to do it.
Thoug for questions for the project one thing to ask might be what good things would dissappear from the world if for some reason religions would cease to exist simply because they can only exist because of religion? What about bad things that exist for exact same reason?
as a bible believing Christian I would be interested in answering any questions you may pose, as long as you would be willing to do the same ,and both of us be subject to the same burden of proof for our position`s.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a list of questions for me, I'll answer them to the best of my ability. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "same burden of proof for our position`s". The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists—in this case, the Christian God.
DeleteIn my opinion the explanation for the universe, life ,et al
Deleteis either one of two positions , its either natural or supernatural. My position is supernatural ie. God , if your position is nature did it then we have a basis for discussion if you don`t have a position at all then we probably don`t have any basis to have a discussion.
How so? Him not having an option on it shouldn't have any effect on your ability to describe your world view.
DeleteIt does not effect my view but as both positions are faith based and neither can be proven , all you can do is to contrast and compare and see which is the most reasonable.
DeleteWhen at 20+ years old I first heard the bible message it seem pretty far fetched but as I studied it and the alternatives it became apparent to me that it was the most reasonable belief to hold. So any unprovable position can seem unreasonable but in comparison to the only other positions it becomes logical.
@ Anonymous Jan 15, 2012 06:17 PM
ReplyDeleteTry
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” — Matthew16:28
There are other references as well. Most apologetics gets off trying to redefine the meaning of "generation."
Lurker111
There's an even better one in the same vein that goes under the radar of many apologetics. It's at Jesus' trial, which goes like this:
DeleteMark 14:
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?”
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 14.62 is a false prediction. None of the people at Jesus' trial saw the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven (the phrase "you will see" is plural future tense, meaning everyone at the trial, not just the high priest).
Thanks for that, J. Quinton! I was looking just this morning for more verses where Jesus predicted his imminent return, but I missed this one.
DeleteThe kingdom spoken of here is Christ domain of rule which is the church, began on pentecost in the book of acts but also carrying on into eternity as Christ rule will be also a heavenly one.So some standing there were not dead when christ kingdom or his rule , the church began , as Christ is a King he has a kingdom.
ReplyDeleteLurker,
ReplyDeleteA great question that I'm glad you pointed out. If only everyone studied the Bible thoroughly and pondered them.
Jesus said this about 2,000 years ago. Do you really think Christians would see that verse and neglect it? You can't cherry pick from the Bible. Yes, we can pull out verses and question them, but you can't pull out single verses and make decisions about the Bible based on that alone.
While this verse by itself may imply the "2nd coming of Christ", it actually implies the transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36).
The Kingdom of God doesn't mean the judgement of Christ on the world. It means the ministry of Christ in establishing his Kingdom on earth. Earlier, in Matthew 4:17, Jesus proclaimed
"Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
This proves that the Kingdom of heaven, referenced many times in Matthew is the establishment of Christ on earth. Obviously, Jesus did not come at that time to judge the world.
The verse you reference, Matthew 16:28 confirms the deity of Christ on the transfiguration to the apostles Peter, John and James and later everyone as revealed in the gospels. This reveals that Jesus was more than just a man, as supposed, but the Son of God.
-NKjr.
Note: It appears that "marfin" and I differ slightly in our views about Matthew 16:28.
DeleteDiffer in that he believes that the verse refers to Pentecost and I think it points to the transfiguration.
However, we both believe the verse points to the kingdom that Christ began here on earth. In a sense, we're in agreement. It is possible the 2 events (pentecost and transfiguration) both have to do with Matthew 16:28.
NKjr.
Sorry, I'll take Occam's Razor on this. The simple, direct interpretation is that Christ announced his return and didn't make it. What you, NKjr, and Marfin have done is redefine the meaning of the words in the text. Which is, when you think about it, all that believers can do in this case.
DeleteLurker111
Ho Ho,
ReplyDelete1-3: You mention the Big Bang as if there is undeniable proof. However, your presuppositions lead you to believing that the Big Bang actually did happen. Therefore, since you believe that a Big Bang did happen, it is easy for you to piece evidence together to argue for a Big Bang. I'm not saying that Creationists don't have presuppositions do either, because we obviously do. We have evidence that you and I both interpret differently. What I'm getting at, is that the theory of the Big Bang is no more legitimate than the theory of God as creator.
There are a lot of assumptions that needed to happen for the Big Bang to take place. Can we readily assume that all the right conditions formed?
- Where did the energy come from?
- How is it that all the right conditions were formed? What guided them and for what purpose?
By your faith that the conditions of the Big Bang were ripe, and that the Big Bang did happen, you can easily assume that these questions are answered.
4) How did the matter from your supposed "Big Bang" become organized into the intricate life and order of the solar system we see today. Do you have proof of this actually happening?
5) You've mentioned the laws of gravity and e=mc^2 as if they were always there. How did those laws come into effect? And why would matter organize itself into order?
6)You gloss over the idea that molecules spontaneously started self-replicating. This is an extremely complicated process when examined at detail. The mechanisms for replication is complex. How did these complex systems form and for what purpose? Wouldn't these molecules die if not fully formed originally?
7)This is much different from question 6. Question 6 refers to life replicating itself from life. 7 refers to life forming from inorganic matter. Scientists cannot form living matter from dead matter and I haven't seen any sustained evidence. Just some ideas.
8) Shouldn't there be mountains of evidence to support these transitional forms? There aren't any, even at the cellular level. Mutations do not add any new information.
9)You are right in that if a specie doesn't multiply, it will die out. But why would an organism "care" what happens after it dies. Why would it feel the need to keep its kind from dying out? There is no explanation for how it got this desire other than it was given instructions in its DNA to do so. This couldn't have evolved and had to have been an original trait from the beginning.
10)In most cases, mutations are harmful to an organism. Can you give me an example of a mutation providing new and improved varieties.
**Can you really be sure that the gaps of evolution or origins can be explained with the same level of substantial proof you demand of a Christian? The average age of a person is about 75. I encourage you to at least consider that God may exist and where you would stand with God of the Bible.
-NKjr.
There's much wrong with your post. You obviously haven't read any even layman-level text on evolution. I'll just point out one comment: "Mutations do not add any new information."
DeleteMutations happen all the time. Nature experiments with mutations, as a result of radiation, chemicals or bacterial cross-DNA borrowing, all over the planet. Millions--billions of such experiments happen all the time. If something truly useful occurs with only a few of these experiments, natural selection will promote those positives. Yes, the great majority of mutations will be useless or even dangerous to the organism, but nature doesn't care.
As to a specific example of mutation providing new information, the next time you're at the doctor's for, say, a urinary tract infection, ask for penicillin. No need for Cipro or Levaquin or any of those newer drugs. The bacteria are still amenable to treatment with the old stuff, sure. Oh--the newer drugs are "Intelligently Designed," don't ya know.
Lurker111
Oh wow, I seem to have written longer post than this blog accepts. Three parts shall it be!
DeleteSorry :)
"You mention the Big Bang as if there is undeniable proof"
Not sure if it's undeniable but Big Bang is pretty much the only thing we currently know about that can explain it that has data supporting it. Think of microwave background radiation, space expanding (space as in dimensions, not matter), redshift, galactic evolution etc. If there is an alternative theory to explain it I'd love to hear it though I'd like it to not contradict our other knowledge if possible and not require too extraordinary assumptions.
"What I'm getting at, is that the theory of the Big Bang is no more legitimate than the theory of God as creator."
For the "god did it" you'd first need to somehow know that god existed in the first place but I see no empirical proof for that. That's pretty much my biggest "problem" about the creation theory.
"- Where did the energy come from?"
If you mean the energy for the actual bang to happen then IIRC one theory was about quantum fluctluations happening and from what I understand it's somewhat similar to radioactive decay, just happening WAY less often. Other was about branes colliding and there are also theories about bubble universes.
Basically we don't know for a fact but there are a few possible explanations that fit with our current understanding. Somewhat similar to how once we thought Earth was flat, standing on elephants, floating in aether and having everything rotate around us. As time went by we learned more and more about our world and filled the gaps in our knowledge that previously were occupied with supernatural mumbo-jumbo with actually verifyable scientific theories (don't confuse them with hypothesis).
"- How is it that all the right conditions were formed?"
What are right conditions? Had things happen a bit different we might live in an unvierse made completely out of antimatter or with different types of quarks. Would that have changed things? I'd say not by much on the grand scheme, just all the physical laws that got created during the bang would have simply described that antimatter world insead of what we have now.
Also, you seem to think that laws of nature were "designed" for us to be able to live here. I believe we (as in pretty much everything in the universe, including all life forms here and probably elsewhere) simply adapted to them instead. Kind of like how sea mammals adapted to living in water through evolution or bats to flying. Their ancestors weren't "designed" for it but their descendants got better at it over time.
"What guided them and for what purpose?"
Why would it have needed a guide and purpose? I see no logical reason for this. Random stuff happens all the time (again, radioactive decay is pretty good example).
"How did the matter from your supposed "Big Bang" become organized into the intricate life and order of the solar system we see today"
As I've said, random stuff happen all the time. Universe is a big place after all and it has had plenty of time to get from pure soup of energy and radiation to what we have now. Pretty much the only question remaining that isn't well known about evolution of life is how the first single-celled organisms appeared. We have pretty good idea on how we got from a soup of atoms to self-replicating molecules and from single cells to complex organisms. Though I haven't had time to look things up recently so scientist might know more about it today.
"Do you have proof of this actually happening?"
DeleteWith our current telescopes we can "look back" to how universe looked like just a few hundred million years after the bang and trace back all the way to today. Obviously we can't directly observe how life formed here on Earth but we have witnessed and often replicated both micro and macro evolution.
"You've mentioned the laws of gravity and e=mc^2 as if they were always there. How did those laws come into effect?"
I would assume they appeared together with the big bang.
"And why would matter organize itself into order?"
What kind of order do you mean specifically? In space there is little to keep things not from clumping together because of gravity. Everything else comes as a natural consequence of that.
"You gloss over the idea that molecules spontaneously started self-replicating. This is an extremely complicated process when examined at detail. The mechanisms for replication is complex. How did these complex systems form and for what purpose?"
Just recently I saw some article about how scientists had replicated the creation of self-replicating molecules artificially. Yes, it's complicated, yes it's rare. Though that doesn't mean it can't happen naturally. If you have billions of years, hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars in each and most of them having planets it doesn't take much for at least one of them see these to have those complex molecules to form. In fact we've found very complex carbon molecules in outer space and on comets. Obviously it's a "bit" harsh there for life to evolve as there simply isn't enough time with stable enough environment.
As for what purpose, why should there be a purpose in the first place? I see absolutely no reason for it. Just the same as (again :) a radioactive atom decaying at random point in time doesn't have a reason to do it, it just does so without having some greater purpose to do it.
"Wouldn't these molecules die if not fully formed originally?"
Technically molecules don't live, at least not by the definition of life we use at the moment. Though yea, they sure can be destroyed just the same way as uncountable amounts of living things die daily all over the world. Though it seems to me that this hasn't really meant life would die out. My guess is that at some point the chemical composition of our oceans was simply such that enough of those molecules "survived" to evolve further into life forms.
"Scientists cannot form living matter from dead matter and I haven't seen any sustained evidence. Just some ideas"
We can't replicate the eye or Sun either, that doesn't mean they are impossible.
"Shouldn't there be mountains of evidence to support these transitional forms? There aren't any, even at the cellular level"
Of course there are. For starters do a bit of research on how domesticated animals and plants came to be from their wild ancestors. Banana should be an especially nice one :)
For more examples of macro-evolution see this:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html
You can always tell me why this information here is wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
After that ponder a little over this image:
http://i.imgur.com/vlGpV.png
"Mutations do not add any new information"
DeleteSo how come you, coming from your parents, are so different from them? What about wild banana vs the stuff you get from stores?
"But why would an organism "care" what happens after it dies. Why would it feel the need to keep its kind from dying out? There is no explanation for how it got this desire other than it was given instructions in its DNA to do so. This couldn't have evolved and had to have been an original trait from the beginning."
I didn't say it cares. I only said if it didn't multiply it would die out. If there ever existed some creature that didn't multiply it has died out long ago and only those that do have survived. Natural selection at it's finest :)
"In most cases, mutations are harmful to an organism. Can you give me an example of a mutation providing new and improved varieties"
Pick any random domesticated animal or plant and you'll have an example of how selecting the fittest results in drastically changed properties. Only difference between breeding and things happening naturally is that breeding goes a bit faster but it ultimately uses exactly the same mechanisms.
"Can you really be sure that the gaps of evolution or origins can be explained with the same level of substantial proof you demand of a Christian"
Well, I've written down most of the stuff I know about it as well as I could. Had I googled and spent more than half an hour on this I might have done better. I know there are gaps in our knowledge but I also know that a whole lot of those gaps have been filled over time and I can't see that changing any time soon. Pretty much all the gaps were previously filled with God, so to speak, but are now explained in ways that doesn't need one.
Basically while I go "I don't know this so I'll have to keep loooking" religions teach us "we don't know how to explain this yet so that MUST mean god did it". That doesn't sound all that rational to me and as I satated originally is pretty much the definition of god of the gaps that is bound to fail as an argument.
"The average age of a person is about 75."
Huh?
"I encourage you to at least consider that God may exist and where you would stand with God of the Bible."
I consider that as I can't disprove anything it is completely possible that some higher being exists. Though until I can see some empirical evidence for it I won't assume it's existence just the same way that I don't assume having invisible pink unicorn in my closet. If anyone can provide me with those evidence without contradicting other knowledge I'm fully ready to take God as a possible theory of explaining our world similarly to how I'm taking the law of gravity or big bang.
Now I'd love to see you both tell me if and why I'm wrong (a few URL's won't hurt. If you need any for my claims just let me know) and also to describe how the same things can be rationally explained by a deity. Emphasis on rationally.
Delete