2008/9/26 Jonathan Chua Yi

I just did a bit of speed reading of "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel, and at the moment, he appears to have quite a strong case for the gospels to be true and reliable. I recommend that you give it a shot, despite any possible misgivings. Closer inspection may reveal logical fallacies eventually, but if so, these fallacies would be quite minor, in no way intruding into the main issue altogether.

As an agnostic, I should think that if the book indeed succeeds in fielding a powerful argument for the bible, while we will not be compelled to all convert into Christians just like that, at the least, we should analyse just what implications this meant for religion, or rather, for Christianity in particular. And what implications this has for the atheist cause. In any case, this would be an interesting discussion in a direction that I rarely, if ever, heard in theological discussions.

Assuming God can be proven to exist rationally (aka through the bible, and the bible proven to be true), that means that contrary to our contemporary arguments, lack of evidence is a nonissue. Agnosticism has just become irrelevant. The main question becomes the following: not whether God exists or not, but whether to believe or not. Whether to submit or not. And while you may think belief follows naturally after the proof, I will beg to differ otherwise. The highly increased possibility that God exists does not inch me towards religion one iota. On the contrary, I prefer the freedom of creating my own system of beliefs, of being independent of others, and of simply being a rebel. If this sends me down to hell, so be it; I daresay I already live a more Christian life than other so-called Christians whom I know of. I will still take Pascal's Wager on the atheist's side, despite the odds.

From my point of view, you guys may notice I react based on my emotions, not the rationals. Rationality would say you become theist. My current opinion is that life is more about the emotions, less of reason; rationalism is the "why", emotions is the "what" and "where". Following reason leads you nowhere, for reason alone is static; emotions is the key to living. If my feelings point against God, then I shall go against God, no matter the foolhardiness involved. Also, one cannot force beliefs, so there is essentially no point trying without the emotional willingness to commit.

Hope to see your opinions on the topic =)


2008/9/27 Dennis Oh

I applaud Jonathan for his honest and crystal clear presentation of his position. Using rationality, I'll admit that the arguments for and against the existence for God can go either, all depending on which set of foundational assumptions you make. The assumption is whether or not there is a god. There is no line of reasoning that comes prior to making that first decision. The decision is made based on how you interpret your idea of happiness. Although theists use "classical" arguments for God's existence, they were never intended to "prove" the existence of God to anyone, but only to show that theism can be reasonably argued. What Jonathan has done is to be perfectly honest with what's going on existentially and volitionally within him. He has a pure indifference to whether or not God exists. His underlying principle for why he rejects religion is because he wants to be free to do what he wants without the external constraint of commandments and religious obligations. He is willing to receive whatever punishment may ensue in the event that he is wrong and he doesn't care one way or another. He will not give in because he does not WANT to. Period. In my opinion, this is authentic humanism, self-actualisation, authentic volitional rejection without the need to hear any more 'rational arguments.'

I've heard very few agnostics expose their position with such honesty and humility, and I commend that. Most atheists have rationalism as their banner, while at the same time, not missing any opportunity to smuggle in their emotional reactions at God's character, or the problem of evil, or religious extremism whenever they can in order to bolster the argument. I suspect that deep down, most hard line atheists are allergic to religious for the very same reason; Jonathan may not be so unique in this respect. It boils down to a simple refusal to "pick" a god and bow down in worship in submission. One minor comment about the living "more of a Christian life than other so-called Christians." I know what you're getting at - using "Christian" as a synonym for moral, upright behaviour. While this is flattering to Christianity and, in fact, Christians ought to be morally upright, we recognize that we are sinners saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It is faith in Christ that makes us Christian, all of our righteous acts are as filthy rags.

For a fellow atheist to come down hard on Jonathan for arriving at his views through emotion makes no sense at all. What does it matter that he chose to ride on the tracks of emotion and volition, rather than dry rationalism? It's not as if rationality is the ONLY way that one ought to arrive at atheism. Besides, even after one has analyzed all arguments, one still needs to make a volitional choice anyway. In a world without God, without constraints, without moral obligations to any higher powers besides the government, without obligations to any written dogma, who really cares what the next guy believes and how he got there? I thought the whole point is to maximize selfishness for the sake of surviving and passing on your genes. The same can be said for those who witnessed the resurrection of Christ and yet did not believe. It's recorded in the Bible as well (how honest a testimony is that?) The facts and figures are essentially irrelevant. They must be interpreted and the conclusion must be accepted with emotional commitment. This is how it is with ALL knowledge.

anyway, thanks for your post Jon.

Dennis.
15:52
5 Comments | Post/Read comment