The funny thing is that I want to call you on it, but I'm not sure that I can. I have to admit that I haven't thought about it specifically in those terms--and now I'll need to. Excellent post.

And, at first blush, I think you're right...

"The only memorable thing from the class was a paper that we had to write in which we were to attempt to prove either the existence or non-existence of God."

Proving the non-existence of anything if pretty much impossible. You may not believe in Santa Claus, but I'd love to see you prove he doesn't exist. Atheism is the height of arrogance and ignorance. To be agnostic is to question. To be atheist is to know (what is not knowable). Atheist have much more in common with fundamentalist than with agnostics. Both are questions of faith. One is something, one in nothing. At least the fundamentalist can make some sort of case for what they believe.

So robin, if I do say that I don't believe in Santa Claus, apparantly that's being arrogant? What if I say I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns or duck-billed lemurs or a cosmic hamster that turns the wheel of time?

Atheists question plenty, we just actually make some kind of judgment on what we think is *likely* to exist, or state that our default belief is in something not existing... *until and unless* it does offer some proof that it exists at all.

Otherwise, we'd have to say we also believed in three-winged sky fairies and 8-dimensional ether worms and so on. Have you made any judgments on the existence of 8-dimensional ether worms, robin? They have just as much proof as God, so you should tolerate and value both equally by your standards.

We're perfectly capable of being all scietifically understanding and knowing that perhaps one of these things COULD exist out there, SOMEWHERE, at least at some future point in time if they don't exist now, but until they have any interaction with our world, why bother worrying about them?

Penguin,

No, but to say that you can "prove" there is no Santa Claus would be, at the least, ignorant. It is one thing not to be sure, or even to be quite certain. It is quite another to "prove" that you're correct, especially when you're trying to prove something "isn't".

Atheists question plenty, we just actually make some kind of judgment on what we think is *likely* to exist, or state that our default belief is in something not existing... *until and unless* it does offer some proof that it exists at all.

The above sentence would make sense if you subtituted agnostic for atheist. Maybe it's all a matter of semantics, but the question posed by stumpjumper's professor sounds like a trick one to me. How can you prove there are no 3 winged sky fairies?

I'm finding it mildly ironic that this conversation is taking place on ResurrectionSong...

Z and S,

Please forgive me for frittering away your bandwidth. It has always been a pet peeve of mine that so many people gleefully proclaim to be atheist, when they are really agnostic. Of course what stumpjumper is getting at, I think, is that many people proclaim to be "religious" or "spiritual", but live as if they are "worldly". Is it possible to believe, yet not live like you do? Probably, under the right conditions. Most likely, however, the would-be-believer is deluding himself. We are fragile creatures capable of all manner of silliness to get from one day to the next.

Robin,

No apologies necessary. Comments are always welcome. You are right about the point that I am trying to make. I go to church weekly and practice my faith daily. I do believe in the tennets of the faith. Interestingly, however, I still take a very secular approach to my everyday behavior. I can't simply accept that something is right or wring simply because scripture says that it is. I slways try to understand why said activity is right or wrong. It is a dichotomy that has fascinated me for years. I think that there are a lot of people like me in this respect. I still haven't figured out what this says about me, so I thought that I would toss it out there and see where the conversation goes.

For me, I think a lot of the reason that I rarely resort to "because the bible said so" arguments has to do with the same thing inside of me that makes me question even those that I admire most. That is, I respect what the bible says, but I still have to live with the moral decisions that I make.

If I were in the camp that believed the bible to be the literal, unquestionable word of God, I would probably have a different view. As I believe that the bible was inspired by God and written down by fallible men who were then interpreted by other fallible men who are in turn being interpreted by the exceptionally fallible me, I have to try to find, like SJ, the underlying reason for the dictates.

That isn't to say that believers with a more fundamental view of the bible than my own don't give careful consideration to their beliefs, but that I'm more willing to step away from some of what they would consider inviolable rules.

My morals were shaped by my Baptist upbringing, and most of my views aren't too far from where I started. In fact, as much as our church potlucks are a part of my happy memories (everywhere we lived around the United States, I could count on those picnics and potlucks in the church to be filled with the exact same foods and populated by people who would have fit in at each and every other Baptist church that I attended), the morals and concepts that I learned then are a part of the grain of my being.

Those views, though, have been refined by my own experiences (and maybe my own arrogance). While I won't say that I know better than God, I'm not always ready to accept that someone else's interpretations of the bible are better than my own. And absent what I consider to be an infallible guide, then the best that I can believe to do is to live my life in the most moral way that I can find--to temper my belief in justice with mercy, to temper my own instincts with kindness, and to try to find God in all the things around me.

I've been told that my arrogance will end me up in hell (literally, I've been told this). I have to accept, as a Christian, that this judgment might be correct. I understand the charge, but answer by saying I have to make the moral decisions that make it possible for me to live in the here and now as well.

Lastly, when arguing a point, I find it pretty counterproductive to use the "the bible says so" argument with people who aren't believers. I find that they will usually tune out whatever words immediately follow any phrase similar to that. There's probably a self-trained aspect to my avoidance of using the bible to justify my beliefs.

Z:

"I believe that the bible was inspired by God and written down by fallible men who were then interpreted by other fallible men who are in turn being interpreted by the exceptionally fallible me"

If I ever get around to writing that "Reading the Bible" post that I have been promising you will find that this is a very Catholic approach. Whereas a Baptist might tell you that you "will end me up in hell" the Pope would tell you that you are on the correct path.

"It has always been a pet peeve of mine that so many people gleefully proclaim to be atheist, when they are really agnostic."

Agnostics ARE atheists. The term applies to anyone who lacks a belief in a god or gods, which is inclusive of the agnostic position of "I don't know either way", since you either believe or you don't. Since religion, theology and philosophy have thus far offered no definition of "god" which isn't either ludicrously anthropomorphic, contradictory or meaningless, any atheistic position, from "weak" ("I lack a belief in gods") to "strong" ("I doubt gods exist") to nocognitivism ("The term "god" has no meaning") is equally tenable rationally.

What about Heaven and Hell? Do you believe that they exist? I do, and so does ZombyBoy. When I decide how to act, however, I do so based on what I feel is right, not on threats of eternal damnation.
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

On the other hand, I will try to improve upon:
I believe that morality has been dictated by God but I also believe that there are reasons for this morality.
The way I see it, "morality" isn't so much an edict as a description.
I've argued for years that we really should rename the 10 Commandments to be "The 10 Ways to a Healthy, Peaceful, Happy Life". God knows us far better than we know ourselves, and so he told us how to live in harmony.
Um, if I may plug my own site, I have been in a discussion regarding these same issues (instigated by a discussion of homosexuality) at Brainfertilizer recently. If you are interested, you need to read the posts on Morality linked in my left sidebar, slightly above all the clickable banners.

I wanted to comment on something that was mentioned above. This split between what you believe and how you choose to live. It seems interesting to me because, in the course of about 10 years, I switched from Baptist, to agnostic, to atheist. One of the things that happened in that time was an evaluation of what I was taught in Church against what i was taught in public school.
It seemed to me that the instruction was pulling me in opposite directions. Church says believe because the book says so and these learned men who interpret say that it is so, but school says question everything, blaze new trails and help advance human learning by learning all you can.
With these two viewpoints to choose from, it becomes more and more obvious that the schools are changing with the times and dealing with the advancement of civilization while religion must rely on unchangeable belief.
This may then go towards explaining why it almost becomes necessary to live your life based on questioning everything and making the moral and philosophical choices that best aid you in life and yet still allow you to hold your faith within yourself. Faith and religion seem to be becoming more and more personal, while the secular lifestyle becomes your public appearance.

Just a couple quick thoughts...

"Those views, though, have been refined by my own experiences (and maybe my own arrogance). While I won't say that I know better than God, I'm not always ready to accept that someone else's interpretations of the bible are better than my own."

Well, you should be careful with this... a good Bible Professor or Pastor has probably spent a great deal more time studying the scriptures than you have... then perhaps you would want to defer when you disagree, particularly when you consider people who can read the Bible in its original language...

This is no different than anything else... people generally will seek an expert in law or home improvement, but often will have a problem with a religious expert... its a little strange.

"It seems interesting to me because, in the course of about 10 years, I switched from Baptist, to agnostic, to atheist. One of the things that happened in that time was an evaluation of what I was taught in Church against what i was taught in public school.
It seemed to me that the instruction was pulling me in opposite directions. Church says believe because the book says so and these learned men who interpret say that it is so, but school says question everything, blaze new trails and help advance human learning by learning all you can."

Ah, well there are plenty of Christians who have discovered many things throughout history... it may surprise you that the Bible itself encourages us to "test everything"...

You really seem to be more irritated with the fundamentalist type mindset, which I would agree with you on, personally, though I personally take my faith quite seriously.

Incidentally, it seems strange to stop believing in God because of thoughts like these... certainly the truth of the Bible is not based on whether or not a certain denomination has a good mindset?

Oh, and one more.

"Agnostics ARE atheists. The term applies to anyone who lacks a belief in a god or gods, which is inclusive of the agnostic position of "I don't know either way", since you either believe or you don't. Since religion, theology and philosophy have thus far offered no definition of "god" which isn't either ludicrously anthropomorphic, contradictory or meaningless, any atheistic position, from "weak" ("I lack a belief in gods") to "strong" ("I doubt gods exist") to nocognitivism ("The term "god" has no meaning") is equally tenable rationally."

Hee hee. You're apparently defending atheism from the charge of atheism, but you're just making it worse... so now you're familiar with all of human religion, theology, and philosophy? And because you don't like the terms they use they must be wrong? I don't see how this gets away from the arrogance factor...

whoops, should have been "defending atheism from the charge of arrogance".

Eh, I begin to bore even myself, but to answer the prompt a little but more specifically... I do not think that it is particularly anti-Biblical to reason for ourselves... but there is a danger in becoming so used to backing up our logic that we forget its source. I personally think that I lose track of my basic Christianity a little too often as well, but then again we certainly should not live our lives constantly fearing that our salvation will be revoked... this is not a Christian position either.

By the way, the Biblical test for our faith is whether or not we produce "fruit" in the sense of living lives that are productive for God's purposes... certainly moral living is part of this, but worship and helping others are very important as well.

Perhaps rather than trying to quote the Bible more often in arguments, you would be better off developing a habit of praying and studying it more, or volunteering at your church... this is, of course, random advice since I don't know you, but it seemed rude to just ignore the prompt...

David: "you would be better off developing a habit of praying and studying it more, or volunteering at your church" -- I actually do both of these. I think that Devil's Advocate hits pretty close in his closing statement. I am very involved in my parish and I pry regularly, but my faith is rarely foremost in my thoughts when not directly involved in parish activity. If I am walking down the street and I see that a person has fallen, I will help them up because I think that it is right thing to do. Ask me why and I'll give you several reasons. It is unlikely that God or my faith will even come up.

Devil's Advocate: "Church says believe because the book says so and these learned men who interpret say that it is so, but school says question everything" -- This isn't entirely true. You mention that you were raised Baptist. Have you had much exposure to non-fundamentalist Christianity? Catholicism, for example, does teach that we should question. It's a longer discussion than I have room for here, but you may want to consider looking into some of the ways that non-fundamentalists approach the Bible, if you have not already done so.

Nathan: I will definitely check that out.

Catholicism encourages and inspires a much broader and richer understanding of scripture and the life of faith than it is given credit for. The problem of interpretation of scripture is really no problem at all because the Catholic Church does not have a list of scriptural interpretations that must be believed regarding every verse of the Bible. This is something that Fundamentalists tend to do because they rely solely on scripture as the determinant of faith and doctrine. Furthermore, personal interpretation should be distinguished from “praying the scriptures," that is, reading the Bible for support, encouragement and inspiration. We can take away many things in time of need, but this does not mean that we have "interpreted the scriptures," merely that we have found consolation or guidance in them. Interpretation is the domain of the formal Magesterium on those core doctrines to which all Catholics must ascribe.

Putting faith into practice is not a matter of checking our every actions against a check list in the scriptures. If we learn the scriptures and the teachings of the Church they become part of us and inform our daily lives and decision making in an almost unconscious way. There are few things in my life that require a daily look at the Catechism.

Catholicism encourages and inspires a much broader and richer understanding of scripture and the life of faith than it is given credit for. The problem of interpretation of scripture is really no problem at all because the Catholic Church does not have a list of scriptural interpretations that must be believed regarding every verse of the Bible. This is something that Fundamentalists tend to do because they rely solely on scripture as the determinant of faith and doctrine. Furthermore, personal interpretation should be distinguished from “praying the scriptures," that is, reading the Bible for support, encouragement and inspiration. We can take away many things in time of need, but this does not mean that we have "interpreted the scriptures," merely that we have found consolation or guidance in them. Interpretation is the domain of the formal Magesterium on those core doctrines to which all Catholics must ascribe.

Putting faith into practice is not a matter of checking our every actions against a check list in the scriptures. If we learn the scriptures and the teachings of the Church they become part of us and inform our daily lives and decision making in an almost unconscious way. There are few things in my life that require a daily look at the Catechism.

Great post by the way.

Thank you, Patrick. I've been promising ZombyBoy that I will discuss the Catholic view of scripture at greater length, but can't seem to get around to it. Your discussion of this is a great introduction to the topic.

"Hee hee. You're apparently defending atheism from the charge of atheism, but you're just making it worse... so now you're familiar with all of human religion, theology, and philosophy? And because you don't like the terms they use they must be wrong? I don't see how this gets away from the arrogance factor..."

No, you misunderstand. The alleged "arrogance" of advocating a universal negative (which is, as I've already pointed out, only ONE atheistic position) is reasonable if all definitions for "god" are logically inconsistent. It is possible, for example, to "define" into existence a teapot orbiting Pluto, and state that I cannot prove that it DOESN'T exist until I search every square millimetre of Pluto's orbit, but once you start using definitions such as "infinite" and "omniscient", etc, this becomes meaningless.

And no, I'm not familiar with ALL human religion, theology and philosophy, any more than you are. But if I'm missing out on something which would turn the rationality of atheism and agnosticism on its head, I'd love for you to share it with me.