Michaelm wrote:
I don't think it's wasted effort at all - I think it's a very worthwhile effort. If we simply dismiss the existence of a deity and don't make any efforts, that's blind faith isn't it? Effectively the same kind of belief system as most religions where the existence of a godhead is postulated.
The effort is definitely worthwhile, but faith in the end is what puts the believer over the top, the things that are not necessarily rationally explained, the coincidences life brings, the graces that move people to do wonders, the overwhelming thankfulness I feel when I am with my family, or when I pray, being in communion with the Lord and others, and I can't explain it, but it changed me, and it has changed others. So many martyrs, so much history. Are we just "drinking the cool-aide"? Is that all it is? Because we can't scientifically prove everything to the satisfaction of the skeptic (and no matter what kind of rational argument is put forth, it can never be enough exactly because of the element of faith).
Of all my attempted arguments, the comment that I would most wish to take back is that atheiets aren't called to disprove the existence of God. Of course I understand the rules of debate and apologetics, and I would not expect that. It was simply a statement of frustration, because as Fist states, "you have to do better". I do care, and I woluld love to make that proof somehow work for him. It's age-old and it's worth the trying. At this point in my journey, however, this is what I currently have to offer. Reason and logic are indeed possible to coexist with faith. It helps add to what I need to put me over the top, but key to my faith is that I don't need them. The experiences I have had, my struggles, and my reconciliation and forgiveness given/received, has shown me that I am someone beyond flesh and bone. If I go into a church, share with others, confess my sins, receive communion, watch the light go on when a poor or sick person is visited by a church volunteer, quit gambling and become a no better steward of the gifts I have been given (due to nothing I have done on my own), resurrect my life, my marriage, my family, all because I opened my heart one day, listened to someone share their story with me, read about the lives of others who have done similar, discovered why, and then consented to let it change me, and it did.
Admittedly, this is not proof in the rational sense, and so it is dismissed as a non-starter, don't even bring it up, it's a "who cares" moment (in the evidentiary sense). These kind of faith-based arguments, as well as those more rational notions I have mentioned, are obviously not enough to sway the atheist. These things cannot be seen, and they apparently must be seen or else they are pointless to bring up. But, I don't think we should insist that "unless you explain it in my terms, I'm not buying it". Why shouldn't we defer to terms that just may be beyond ourselves? And I like the JRR Tolkien argument that finally converted CS Lewis....to,paraphrase: "But, what if it's true, Jack?". And so CS Lewis left Tolkien that day an atheist, and arrived home a Christian. I think he saw how "what if it's true" explained a lot about this world, maybe not that what he could see and touch, but more of what he couldn't. I don't think empiracally provimg something has to be the beginning and end of the discussion. I think we need to look around us, look around and see what perhaps we couldn't see before. Sometimes, you'll hear someone say, "take a look at it from his/her perspective for a moment", and you wait a moment, and then they get where you're coming from. And "ahah" moment, if you will. Now, I know that's just what the other person will then call on me to do, but I think by attempting to make these rational arguments, that's what I have been doing. I think it's fair to at least suggest that we each try and do likewise, if we can, if we think it's worthwhile.
. Why then would a believer even bother to atempt such a proof, especially to an individual who so failed to understand the underlying requirement for this faith that they demanded a proof in the first place. Belief is not knowledge, but no less relevent for that; I cannot know that my parents loved me - but I believe it.
I have begun to act as though it is real even though I *know* it is an experiment I am doing on myself! 