.jpg)
God of the Hebrew Testament
Ms. Adamson is described as a former atheist who is now a Christian. She has written a list of six reasons why people should believe in God. www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html She starts out very badly by comparing an atheist with a person who doesn’t believe that people have walked on the moon. She suggests that those ‘moon-walk unbelievers’ will reject all evidence, such as photographs and moon rocks and that ‘God unbelievers’ may reject evidence for God in much the same way.
As a former science teacher, I understand the use of physical evidence and I understand her argument. For example, many of my students had difficulty accepting the idea of the Big Bang and asked for evidence. Fortunately, there is ample evidence for the Big Bang - enough for a separate article. I must wonder what physical evidence Ms. Adamson is going to present as proof of God.
Before I discuss the reasons she offers as ‘evidence’, I should point out the effect of real evidence on the value of faith. Many religions demand faith in God, in a creator, perhaps in God’s son, Jesus, and His miracles. The existence of real proof negates that unconditional faith and makes it mere acceptance, which might not be sufficient for admission into heaven.
The first four reasons that Ms. Adamson gives are statements like the Earth is the perfect distance from the sun, physical laws are consistent in the universe, the human brain and eye are complex, and DNA is long. This is the anthropic principle, the idea that since the universe is perfectly fitted for humans, it must have been designed for humans, rather than the reverse. If we were incompatible with the universe, we would not exist, and some compatible being would be writing this article. Ms. Adamson plays the Intelligent Design game by quoting eminent scientists out of context, making them appear to support her case.
These four reasons of Ms. Adamson are basically ‘beautiful sunset’ arguments. I have a good friend who is very religious. The best argument he can make for the existence of God is that sunsets are beautiful. “When I see a beautiful sunset,” he says, “I know that God exists.” If sunsets were ugly would it be proof of God’s non-existence? He was dumbfounded when I proposed that beings living on a different planet might find purple sunsets beautiful and thus prove the existence of ‘their’ gods. We may find sunrises beautiful because they signal the end of night, and sunsets beautiful because they signal a time to return to the companionship, food and warmth of the cave where we are safe. Our eyes have evolved to see the light from our sun and the changing sky colors as night falls or day dawns are pleasing because we evolved here. Humans living on Mars with a pink sky and purple sunsets may not find them beautiful, but I am sure the Martians enjoy them.
Her fifth reason for God’s existence is that “He actively pursues us.” Talk about chutzpah! God created the universe for us; He controls the forces between every particle of the universe, even those so far away that we will never know they exist, and yet He actively pursues us like we are a reluctant lover. This is a step beyond the idea of the ‘God shaped hole’ in the human soul – the idea that humans long for a God because they perceive emptiness in themselves. Ms. Adamson says God is so needy that He tries to seduce us into loving Him. Not only does she anthropomorphize God, she makes Him into a weak and drooling suitor. And what a suitor. If we have something He wants, why is He so cruel to us, causing or allowing so much suffering in the world, not only to humans, but to all living things. The lives of most living things are filled with terror and inevitably end in being killed and eaten, or eaten alive, by some other creature. And consider this. Ms. Adamson admits to the Big Bang happening and scientists have determined it happened 13 billion years ago, which is 12 billion, 999 million, 996 thousand years before humans began worshipping God in the middle eastern desert. Who was God spending His time with before we came on the scene? Who was He wooing before us? Are we getting Him on the rebound?
Her sixth argument is that Jesus, unlike other founders of major religions, claimed to be God. God exists because of the delusions of a first century apocalyptic prophet. And what proof is there that Jesus was Devine? Jesus is said, by the Bible, to have performed miracles. What Ms. Adamson misses is that every prophet of that time claimed the same miracles – healing the sick, raising the dead, and so on. What do we have for the proof of these miracles? We have rock solid testimony from the people who talked to the people who knew people who had been in the area when the story of these marvelous occurrences was going around. And the people who wrote down the miracles didn’t really have any ulterior motives for claiming Jesus’s divinity, now, did they?
Ms. Adamson has presented the reasons why she believes in God, but she has not presented anything like a photo of a man walking on the moon or a rock from the moon. She presents ‘pie in the sky’ evidence. The first four reasons can be explained in other ways. The sixth reason is questionable. Jesus may have existed, and he probably preached some sort of ‘end of the world – now’ stories. Jesus may be more like the guy with the ‘The End is Nigh’ sandwich board than like a God. His followers saw a good thing and promoted it by exaggerating and perhaps creating stories from whole cloth.
This leaves us with number five – God pursuing us. I guess I would attribute this to a mild case of paranoia. God is after Ms. Adamson just as aliens and black helicopters are after other nuts.
Comments
I recomend you also read "God: The Evidence" also by a former Atheist and also just as noncompelling.
And is the Big Bang proof that God doesn't exist? The Big Bang is a theory, not absolute proof of creation. Please dedicate one of your articles to explaining how the Big Bang happened, and what existed before the "Big Bang". How was that created? If you can't tell me, then I might as well not believe in science. Tell me about evolution. What created the human brain? If it evolved, what "thought process" decided it was necessary before it evolved? Is evolution something on automatic pilot, or does it have it's own "thought process"? What gives evolution is creativity? Natural selection? I don't think so, and there is ample evidence to bring doubt into that "theory" as well. Tell me how "evolution decided we needed "eyesight" when it wouldn't know what sight is if it didn't have "vision" to begin with? And if you look at the world with all it's variety, all of it's unique attributes, ask yourself how this all came from a cosmic explosion and some carbon building blocks???
that is very very cool
that is very very cool
Ho Hum... yet another "science teacher" pretending to understand cosmology:
""She suggests that those ‘moon-walk unbelievers’ will reject all evidence, such as photographs and moon rocks and that ‘God unbelievers’ may reject evidence for God in much the same way.""
And it is a historically recorded fact, (by atheist physicists), that she is correct in this assertion, especially where the anthropic principle is concerned, but only because atheists too wrongly find god in evidence that can and does appear to indicate that we are not here by accident.
""As a former science teacher, I understand the use of physical evidence and I understand her argument.""
But you don't seem to grasp the fact that scientists are known to practice the unfounded and dogmatic quasi-religious belief known begrudgingly to them as, "Copernicanism". Probably because you are ideologically predisposed in a similar manner.
Look this up:
google knol anthropic principle richard ryals
The big bang is a theory, not an absolute proof of how creation happened. Unless you can pen an article on how the big bang was created, I guess we should all dismiss science? When contemplating the world, ask yourself what "thought process" determined we needed a brain to exist? Ask yourself how "evolution" could "see" that we needed eyesight before giving it to us? This article seems to use the argument of "religion" to dismiss the possibility of a "higher creator". I guess the possibility that religion is nothing more than another form of language trying to describe something beyond our understanding eludes you? If you see a tree in the desert and call it a weed, but I call it a tree, is it a tree or a weed? The truth is that all things are what they are, regardless of how we describe them. They are "absolute" if we see, touch, smell or "sense" them. And yes, somethings exist that we cannot humanly sense (science has proved that).
"And is the Big Bang proof that God doesn't exist? The Big Bang is a theory, not absolute proof of creation."
Mr. Adore: "Proof" belongs in mathematics, not in science. Science has no "absolute proof" of anything, even that the Earth is not flat. Various propositions are supported or not supported by evidence, to which we can assign inductive probabilities. The evidence for the Big Bang is very convincing, and so we can place a high probability of it having actually occurred. The probability of a "Creation Week" 6000 years ago, as detailed in Genesis, is very very small.
"And yes, somethings exist that we cannot humanly sense (science has proved that)."
Once again, science does not "prove" anything. But yes, we have strong evidence for the existence of some things that cannot be directly sensed,evidence obtained through use of the scientific method and recorded with scientific instruments working on known principles of nature. We can accept these things because of the evidence, which is reliable and reproducible. So how then is this an argument for accepting things for which there is no credible evidence?
lmao, she adopted Christianity for those reasons? Ugh, she's just another creationist.
Definitely enjoyed reading the article and as a compliment I'd say there were some reasonable arguments. There also seemed to be a lot of Dogma and sarcasm in the article.
The clearly identified picture of God at the beginning of the article was appreciated. I wondered what he looked like.
i've read her article and one thing really bother me.
"Jesus is the clearest, cuz he claimed to be equal to God."
Is claiming to be equal to the God really a good thing? wasn't he just hurting the name of God? As far as i know there is no evidence that Jesus have performed miracles, nor did other prophets.
I want the opinion from the christians. Have you ever think why do you adress God as "He or Father"? Do you really think that the God has the same gender as mankind? (My mothertongue isnt english, so im sorry if im wrong.)
I am a muslim and im totally against that, but that doesnt mean i hate Christian.
Diaz
Those are two good questions. I'm a Christian with some religious training as well.
The gender question is easier to respond to. Some people believe that God is referred to as Male in the Bible because it was written in ancient Palestine, a patriarchal society and that god's at that time were routinely assigned gender.
Today most people continue referring to God this way although when asked they may say God is neither male or female.
It's also interesting that in English, it is difficult to refer to God without gender. And an effort to refer to God as Female is not generally accepted by most christians.
Diaz,
Concerning your question about Jesus being equal to God. First, I don't know why Marilyn Adamson ended her article claiming that Jesus is God. I think she changed topics.
I'll try to answer your question. Personally I have no doubt that Jesus existed in ancient Israel and inspired enough people to have a religious following after he died.
It's difficult to prove that the miracles happened unless you believe what people wrote in the bible. I think you need to ask why people put the effort to witness about and write about Jesus after he died and why the religion got started.
I think christians see Jesus as God, because it's one simple way to understand who Jesus was. Christians believe Jesus was created by God and sent to earth to show people how to live and follow God's will. The understanding is that he is a son of God.
Saying that Jesus was God is really a belief that got started after Christianity began to explain who Jesus was.
Hey, I just wrote a piece debunking exactly the same essay -- but from a pandeistic point of view -- at Everything2, titled "Everything2
Six reasons -- er, four reasons -- why maybe there could be a (nontheistic) God".
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!