Why I Believe

How I Came To Believe

I can’t say that there was ever some great epiphany that first caused me to start believing in God. Being raised by Christian parents I naturally adopted the values that they instilled within me; and while they never forced me into the pew’s or dragged me to Sunday school, I wasn’t any older than seven or eight when I first started to believe in God. Growing-up I never had any compelling supernatural experiences, there were no great tell-tale signs that were tailored to my life. In contrast my persuasion was a result of a profound intuitive awareness pulsing through my veins; it was my inherent moral consciousness testifying to a God above.

There was never any sharp dichotomy between God and the world around me. Even as a young boy, belief in God always made sense to me. The need to express what I saw and felt through a purely naturalistic world-view seemed irrational. I had no problem believing in a transcendent cause to life because my capacity to reason, intellectualize and soulfully produce profound emotions all seemed wonderfully and inexplicably poetic – call me a romantic but something about the grandeur of life inspired me. Sure I never seen God with my own two eyes, but did people actually expect me to believe that the beauty and complexity of creation came about by some natural unguided process? In my mind such atheistic ideologies seemed mystical, exotic and unequivocatingly absent of reason.

Why the Judeo-Christian God?

So why Christianity? – you might ask. Why not one of the other mono or polytheistic religions such as Islam or Hinduism? While my acceptance of Christianity was initially due to my up-bringing in a Christian household, I can say that there are several key components that have solidified my faith in Christianity over the past several years.

One such component was the historical accuracy of Biblical prophecy – something that no other religion can lay claim to. Foretelling the restoration of the nation of Israel and the predominance of gentile believers, the scriptures persist as relevant even to the present day. Furthermore books like Psalms, Isaiah, and Micha foretold  nearly a thousand years in advance the life and crucifixion of Jesus.

Psalms 22:16 “For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil doers has encompassed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.”

Isaiah 53:5 “But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.”

Micha 5: 2 “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past”

In fact Jesus himself fulfilled over 300 biblical prophecies – how was this to be explained? Was one suppose to simply write it off as coincidence? or conveniently dismiss it all together as fairy-tale? One might simply claim that Jesus never existed, that He was just another illusory fictitious god like Zeus or Hercules. Indeed this is the most common argument that skeptics raise in order to deny the divine anomaly that was the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Bart Ehram, a famous American scholar and self-professed agnostic criticized the absurdity of those who try to argue that Jesus was not a historical figure, saying “this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.. there is no scholar in any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early Christianity, or any related field that doubts that Jesus existed.*”

The life of Jesus as well as his followers are abundantly attested in early sources. Tacitus, a Roman historian from the 2nd century recorded the following events: “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also.” I often wonder, once the mischief broke out again why didn’t the Romans simply display the dead corpse of Jesus?  clearly the apostles had been going around telling people that Jesus had risen from the dead, the Romans only needed present his dead body to smash such pernicious superstitions (speaking only as though He had never risen from the dead of course).

The life of Jesus was profoundly unique beyond all historical measures. Even to this day He persist as the most influential person to ever walk the planet – but why? He commanded no great army, He held no official political position, He never conducted any great scientific experiments. On the contrary, He was stricken and we esteemed Him not. Jesus came only preaching the kingdom of Heaven; He came only to bare a cross – a cross that was to be the burden of our sins.

The Greek scholar Fredrick Nietzsche once said “The gods justified human life by living it themselves – the only satisfactory response to evil ever invented.” Jesus came to offer the Gospel of regeneration and redemption, He did not distanced Himself from our suffering, rather He became apart of it – tackling the perennial issues of misery and wickedness that so often fester our minds. It was after his conversion to Theism that the famous English philosopher Anthony Flew said “if there is a truth, it’ll have to be in the person of Christ,” I tend to agree with him.

Further Conclusions

Over the last year I have developed a genuine interest for diverse fields of study such as biology, cosmology and archaeology. Being raised in the public school system I was taught that such studies fundamentally contradicted belief in God; that the existence of a intelligent designer was preposterous and anyone who held such delusions should be patronized. Yet It wasn’t long until I realized such beliefs were simply fashioned around ones willingness to bow to the evolutionary dogma.

It appeared to me as if evolutionist had simply commandeered the secular hierarchy within the scientific community – presupposing a random unguided process as the default for all creation. But what is the precedent in which they derived such a conclusion? Does history tell us that earth like planets just naturally arise from nothing? Does our knowledge of cause and effect tell us anything other than complexity and intelligence most assuredly always point to an agent?

When abandoning God one must sacrifice absolutes; moral law, hope, and meaning all become arbitrary. Self-reference becomes the only grounds that one has to derive any sort of foundation for their values. Thus if self-reference is the only grounds for gaining traction, what right do we have to insist any moral code? The French philosopher Etinne Borne once said that “Atheism is the deliberate, definite, dogmatic denial of the existence of God. It is not satisfied with the existence of appropriate truth or relative truth, but claims to see the ins and outs of the game quite clearly being the absolute denial of the absolute.”

For the longest time I couldn’t fathom why people chose not to believe in God. Who would want to live such a hopeless life? In this I will leave you with the words of Plato:

Behold! Human being living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light..

Here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move..

They see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave..

At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion but that now when is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned more real existence, he has a clearer vision..

And if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, then only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Why I Believe

  1. Although you say you have an interest in biology, you clearly do not – and can never – have an understanding of it as long as you first attribute, assign, and assert you god into it and then try to mold reality around it. That is a fatal methodological error you’re making because it first rejects realty’s role to arbitrate claims made about. That’s why beliefs based on such methodology are always deserving of our highest levels of skepticism because this method is identical to what is medically defined as delusional thinking.

    Lets see where its use leads you.

    Right on cue, you expose this delusional thinking when you spout very stupid creationist talking points misrepresenting evolution, while following the script that there’s some vast yet highly organized atheist conspiracy behind this science. That’s delusional thinking in action – religiously motivated – and it is an expected product richly deserving of contempt and ridicule for it’s rejection of reality in favour of contrary and incompatible religious beliefs.

    You compound your error when you use the standard argument that you think undermines evolution by presenting a different explanatory model. Your ‘reasonable’ alternative comes in the form of some causal agency of Oogity Boogity performing acts to effect in the here and now using the mechanism of POOF!ism. Yet that is exactly what you’re trying to suggest and then wonder why so many of us mock the lunacy of your alternative model. That’s not an alternative model: that’s more empty claims based not on reality but your religious beliefs. Religion is not the way to learn about auto mechanics or dentistry or pie making any more than it is a way to learn about biology, yet because a product of scientific study in biology – one of its central pillars, in fact – reveals an explanatory model that produces applications, therapies, and technologies that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time but is contrary to your belief about how life now has come to be over time, you only now allow your religious belief to dictate to science what is acceptable not based on overwhelming evidence from reality but on your belief.

    That’s delusional thinking. Sorry to pop your bubble, but your beliefs are not equivalent to reality. And studying more religion isn’t going to further your understanding about anything even one jot or tittle. It is a guaranteed way to fool yourself.

    Like

    • Its amusing to me how evolutionist and atheist arrogate to themselves the high ground in the debate by appealing to science, yet never actually say anything scientific. As is often the custom you spend most of your time berating others beliefs, classic defense by offense sort of strategy. Your proclivity toward presuming the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of your opponents methodology is very self-serving, I think this is commonly referred to as arrogance.

      “Although you say you have an interest in biology, you clearly do not – and can never – have an understanding of it as long as you first attribute, assign, and assert you god into it and then try to mold reality around it”

      Again this assumption that because I believe in God my capacity to assess and ascertain scientific data has suddenly become infected and I am no longer suitable to make any objective conclusion is very self-serving. On the contrary I have found that intelligent design is in inference to the best explanation. I think we find tons of evidence to support this both Cosmologically with Hubble’s discovery of the expanding universe; Biologically with the advent of nano-technology revealing the irreducible complexity of tiny biological machinery the likes of which mutations could never account for; Archaeologically with the burst of fundamentally new and complex life forms arising in the Cambrian epoch without any known precursor in the fossil record.

      It is the atheist such as yourselves that delusively try to explain away such phenomenon, so please spare me from your whole “delusional thinking” bit. Again under what precedent do atheist conclude that earth-like planets bursting with life just randomly arise from non-living particles? You act as if -despite it being mathematically impossible and scientifically implausible – the world with all its life forms and consciousness it self just came about by tiny dead particles organizing themselves in a meaningful way. Such a methodology holds to the qualities of poofism and wishful thinking all the more tightly because science and math have already shown us that such explanations are dead ends, perhaps this why we had renown chemical evolutionary theorist like Dean Kenyon and world renown philosophers like Anthony Flew convert to Christianity after discovering such to be true.

      “Religion is not the way to learn about auto mechanics or dentistry or pie making any more than it is a way to learn about biology,”

      Your attempt to reduce and attack the intellect of Believers such as myself is duly noted. No one is asserting religion in place of science, once again you have served yourself up with a healthy dose of presumptuous arrogance. Let me make this clear, God is an agent and science is a mechanism. No one is asserting that God is a mechanism to replace science. The earliest scientist such as Newton, Copernicus and Galileo all held that they could study nature and make sense of it all – Why? because they believed science was intelligible to the human mind in that it was designed by a rational intellect.

      If you brake out of your materialistic conclave perhaps you will begin to see a more real reality than that which rest before your naked eyes.

      Like

      • You say No one is asserting religion in place of science…

        Really? Then why do you say,

        I have found that intelligent design is in inference to the best explanation…?

        You see, it’s obvious from over here what it is you’re doing and I don;t think you see it. You may think ID is the ‘best’ explanation but it ain’t science! Consider the Dover ruling by judge Jones:

        “A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.”

        What you label as ‘arrogance’ from me – for having the audacity to point out and then criticize your blatant foolish methodology that you’re trying to pawn off as a legitimate and respectful ‘alternative’ to good science – is no such attitude: it’s merely a healthy respect I have for reality to arbitrate claims made about it versus your… what… ego?… that first imposes your faith-based beliefs on reality and then you get busy with your ‘intellect’ to spend time and effort trying to justify the a priori religious assertion… which is exactly what I pointed out is a fatal methodology that allows one to fool one’s self…. a concern, I think, anyone of intellectual integrity should be concerned about if – IF – one is honestly desiring to find what’s true.

        Apparently, you’re not. You already believe you have the right explanation (Oogity Boogity caused everything by the mechanism of POOF!ism) And you think such an ‘explanation’ is deserving of respect while you malign a real scientific theory of tremendous explanatory value that powers applicationsl, therapies, and technologies that work?

        You have fooled yourself and – no surprise – look foolish doing so. So I thank you for proving my point and perhaps you will now choose to educate rather than continue to delude yourself.

        Like

    • “You say No one is asserting religion in place of science…

      Really? Then why do you say,

      I have found that intelligent design is in inference to the best explanation…?”

      Umm because ID is a scientific theory just like evolution. By your comments I am led to believe your argument against Intelligent Design and God is simply rooted in incredulity. You’r not even remotely open to the idea that science could point us to a transcendent cause, you assert the absolute denial of God, your are 110% completely hell-bent on preserving a materialistic ideology. You have served up this impasse that God and science are completely and utterly mutually exclusive.

      You see despite what you would like to believe science and God can walk hand in hand, what we are really talking about is the origins of life. You believe – against all scientific plausibility and mathematical reasoning- that life came about by some natural unguided process, or maybe like Dawkins you simply believe that aliens could have planted us here. The reality is that atheist and evolutionist have no rational methodology of how the universe came in to existence, you simply argue that under no circumstances could it ever be God. But again under what precedent to you assert such a claim?

      Just because you fail to formulate any hypothesis on the origins of life doesn’t mean that you have some how preserved your credibility. Such a stance is the cowards way out because you fail to even acknowledge what it is that you actually do believe, or the implications of what is that you believe. If you were to stretch out your theories a little further to address the questions of life and consciousness you would begin to see your ideologies are miserably inadequate and foolish.

      Like

      • You say Umm because ID is a scientific theory just like evolution.

        No it’s not. That’s why I quoted the trial judge. That’s why ID has been defeated in every court case involving the teaching of it (masquerading as if equivalent science) in science classes in various states. It’s a well known wedge strategy to promote creationism and it is constantly promoted by the Discovery Institute and it’s cast of admittedly creationist characters. You’ve been fooled.

        I understand that you believe it is science and this demonstrates your vast ignorance about what science is and how science works. This deplorable lack of knowledge helps explain why you make various statements throughout this comment that are really remarkably ignorant. You are so sloppy in your thinking that you create positions I and others do not hold and then attribute them as if true when they are not.

        How did life begin? I don’t know and neither do you. But note that you’re the only one here pretending you do. But I do know how life changes over time because I understand the evolution explanatory model. You don’t. This is something that can be rectified but I doubt you care enough to even try. You have your pseudo-answers garbed as piety and you’ll stick with it rather than open your mind and learn about the real world. And that’s sad because it’s a waste of a perfectly good mind polluted with the toxins of the religious meme that tries to displace knowledge with ignorance and calls it ‘faith’. It’s just ignorance… and you’re convinced maintaining it and defending it is a virtue.

        You are comfortable vilifying others for their understanding, comfortable making stuff up and misrepresenting others (like the Dawkins reference), and what’s truly pathetic, comfortable enough in your ignorance to think you actually know stuff you do not know and dishonest enough to pretend it’s equivalent ‘knowledge’.

        Like

    • “How did life begin? I don’t know and neither do you.”

      So by your own volition you are actually now saying that your agnostic and not atheist. Yet you definitively and dogmatically deny the existence of God. It’s only when your forced to be honest with the implications of your atheistic ideologies with regards to origins that you try to save face and play the agnostic card, sorry but this completely undermines everything that you have been asserting so vehemently. Someone who lacks a clear understanding of what they actually believe isn’t capable of having a fruitful and open dialogue.

      Like

      • you definitively and dogmatically deny the existence of God.

        See? You’re doing it again. I have never, ever, in my life definitively and dogmatically denied the existence of any god or gods.

        You even have trouble understand the important differences between the whole agnostic/atheist labels. Yet the roots are right there for you to see: gnost meaning knowledge and theist meaning god – so it stands to reason that the label ‘agnostic’ is a statement about knowledge and the label ‘atheist’ is a statement about belief in gods. This may explain to you why most New Atheists clearly self identify as agnostic atheists. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

        So it is just another example of your muddled thinking to say something so stupid as “Someone who lacks a clear understanding of what they actually believe isn’t capable of having a fruitful and open dialogue.” If you’d stop assigning to me over and over and over your lack of a clear understanding about a host of issues, that would be a step in the right direction.

        Like

    • “I have never, ever, in my life definitively and dogmatically denied the existence of any god or gods.”

      So you don’t deny the existence of God.. but you absolutely deny Intelligent Design?? You see I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, on the contrary I’m helping you acknowledge the implications of what you are saying.

      “New Atheists clearly self identify as agnostic atheists. ”

      ????

      Agnostic is someone who claims that they don’t have enough knowledge to make a decision, they neither claim faith nor disbelief in God.

      Atheist is someone who simply disbelieves in God.

      So what your actually trying to tell in your own fancy way is that you have no idea how the world was created, but you absolutely know that it wasn’t God. So I’m right to believe that your argument against God is rooted in nothing more than incredulity?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s