I’ll come right out and say it, I had a revelation. My Easter post was meant as a snarky set-up for a post about the impotency of prayer. Looking back at where I was when I wrote it, I feel like a fool...and yet, I’m very grateful that it was written. It lead me to my revelation.
I don’t know where to begin writing. My hands are just on auto-pilot, so bear with me. (I wonder if this is how the authors of the Bible felt.) The atheist perspective is that prayer can’t be meaningful because people can and do pray against each other. For example, I pray for Team A to win while someone else prays for Team B to win. Since we can't know what the Lord has planned, it's even possible for us to pray against God’s will. I still think this is a valid point, to a degree, but I can’t ignore the coincidence of it. My reader's prayers were answered, they just can't be quantified. God always knew this would be when I was saved and He also knew I would be prayed for. In this way, I know your prayers helped. If you didn't pray for me, you may ask "how do you know I was prayed for in the first place?" I could feel it! No, I’m not that connected to the divine just yet. I read it. I received an Easter email from a Christian that told me exactly what I needed to hear. I have since wrote him back asking for permission to post his letter, in hopes it will touch my many atheist readers like it has touched me. So far, no response. It will have to wait for another post.
You should know that I went to church with my wife’s Catholic family on Sunday. As an atheist, I generally agreed to show up on holidays to spend time with the in-laws, secretly critiquing the homily in my mind. I couldn’t think of anything this time around. Strangely, I drew a blank. The service all happened so fast, very different from how I usually feel it drag on. I left the church an atheist, same as always--but in a daze.
Family dinner was pleasant, the evening went well. I barely had a concept for my life changing. In my interviews with Christians-turned-atheists, I've learned the change is usually gradual. From cult to mainstream to liberal believer to agnostic to atheist. I wonder if the conversion to atheism moves slowly because it is unnatural or against God's will. Either way, the Lord provided me the perspective needed to hasten my reconversion.
Did I have an “a-ha,” or perhaps an “amen!” moment? If I did, it happened between the hours of 11pm and 5am. I woke up with the force of knowledge only an epiphany of this magnitude could deliver. My revelation? It was the first of April. All Fools' Day.
What's he getting at here? Where is this going?
ReplyDeleteSon of a bitch, april fools day!
Surely, you didn't really think I was a convert.
Deletenaa, more that I was mindlessly reading wondering where the hell you were going with it.
Delete*groan*
ReplyDeleteApril fools? :p
ReplyDeleteHello, I have been here before. Once a while back. And I know (now) that it is April 1st. However, in all seriousness, I have had some changes to my beliefs. until very recently, I was a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, Ray Comfort style. Very zealous. I have since drifted into a confused agnostic-like state. I have a few posts on my blog regarding my deconversion, I thought you may find them interesting. http://www.dontbeliveit.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteThanks
I remember you, glad to hear you came around.
DeleteNicely done? I guess I was correct to be a bit reluctant. But I would like to produce some comments on a point I raised on 3/31:
ReplyDeleteQuote: Still, science as shiny as it is, falls short of explaining the deep mysteries of this universe because, as currently structured, it is definitionally limited to those things it can measure. But your mind, be it ever so humble, is not so limited. End quote.
So what do atheists rely on to guide their decision making, when there is no science to guide a decision? Please don't misinterpret this question - I am not trying to argue that any form of a deity is needed to answer it. How does an atheist answer it? What, for example, excludes some form of deism that is not anthropocentric or based on some anthropomorphic conception of such a deity? Atheists seem as prone as Christians are to assuming that humans are the central issue. The whole problem of evil seems to arise due that potential mistake. Pax.
Just having a little fun on April Fools. :-)
DeleteI freely admit science doesn't explain everything, but to say it will never do so is an assumption I won't make. Most every argument for God is taking advantage of some gap in human knowledge, I believe as more time passes, the less gaps there will be--I just want to stay ahead of the curve.
"So what do atheists rely on to guide their decision making, when there is no science to guide a decision?" This could have many answers. Can you provide an example of such a decision so my answer may be specific and meaningful?
"What, for example, excludes some form of deism that is not anthropocentric or based on some anthropomorphic conception of such a deity?" Nothing. It's possible, I just don't see why it would be likely.
Is Pax your name? If so, cool.
Suffering is often used as a counterfactual (problem of evil) standing against an all-good personal God. Accepting that there is no God, does this mean that life is evil, or produces evil? The problem of evil doesn't disappear with the disappearance of theism, does it? If atheism is a metaphysical position, and not just the absence of a position, what do atheists do with the problem of evil? Beunas noches señor
DeleteIf a deity isn't pulling the strings of the world, then random events can be the cause of suffering.
DeleteGood. So if randomness produces suffering, is randomness evil?
DeleteNo, it's not, but I don't call it a problem of evil. I call it a problem of fairness.
Deletehttp://deityshmeity.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-twofold-problem-of-fairness.html
Grundy Quote: "Second, an atheist admitting that evil exists at all will prompt some Christian debaters to detour the conversation to the argument from morality because they only define “evil” in terms of their religion. I’d rather the debate stay on topic. Replacing “evil” with “fairness” is both more specific and more accurate for my biggest problems with religious dogma."
DeleteExcellent post. But I have no quarrel with abandoning a doctrine that places any unrealistic conditions for "acceptance" on the unfortunate. To the contrary, I said on 3/31: "This is a change in [psychological, or new man] perspective, not a change in fortune ... The point would be this: a change in perspective is something each person can do within their own mental makeup, and regardless of religion."
Imo, this capacity to alter one's orientation to the realistic conditions of the world is universal, and not capable of being dogmatically limited. I agree it is not a matter of selection or admission; it's a matter of choice. The existence or non-existence of God is an independent issue.