A Question Of Grace

A Question Of Grace

Richard Mulholland is without a doubt one of the smartest people I know. Not only that, but I consider him a close personal friend and confidante. We’ve been through similar challenges, both in terms of running businesses and running lives, and I know for myself that I am deeply grateful for the role he’s played in my life. In my book he’s a proper legend.

The interesting thing is that we’ve built our friendship, and I dare say common respect for each other, despite the fact that there is a glaring difference between us; I am a Christian – a follower of Jesus – and he’s a “militant atheist” (to quote Rich himself). Rich is not shy to express his opinion(s) either – and he always makes a compelling argument. This post is a response to a recent debate that started on Twitter after I retweeted the following Phillip Yancey (I have no explanation for his hairstyle) quote: “I left the church because I found so little grace there. I came back because I found grace nowhere else.”

I retweeted it specifically because I identified with Yancey’s experience of the church, and also because having read some of his literature, I understand the definition of grace in the context that Yancey uses it. Rich took exception to the quote, saying “how sad for you (and Yancey). I find grace all over the place. Open your eyes/mind”. And so a debate ensued.

In the interest of not clouding Twitter with our argument, I decided to explain what I meant here. Rich felt that I was making a sweeping statement about the “un-churched” (by which I presume he means people that don’t go to a church), implying that if you don’t go to church you’re unable to display grace. This was certainly not my intention at all.

There are three things about the quote I want to pick up on that will hopefully paint a clearer picture of what I was saying. Firstly, the quote does not state that “people find grace nowhere else”, it spoke specifically of Yancey’s personal experience. I shared his sentiments, having worked in the church and belonged to churches for many years and being surprised at just how ungracious a place the ‘body of Christ’ can be in reality. This was not an attempt at educating anyone, pointing fingers at anyone or even making a general statement about anyone – it was simply a quote that stood out to me as representative of my journey. That’s my first point, Rich – this was not at all meant to be a statement in general, and I apologise if it was taken as so.

Secondly I want to talk about the definitions of ‘grace’ and ‘church’. How you react to this particular quote revolves primarily around how you understand these terms. Rich was unimpressed when I said that our definitions may be different, as he believes that “Grace is grace… good will, caring, compassion. All those things exist everywhere.” I couldn’t agree more on that point Rich – I’ve experienced goodwill, caring and compassion everywhere and on a daily basis. But I said GRACE for a reason – because although grace incorporates things like goodwill, caring and compassion on one layer, for me it has a far deeper meaning and implication. Without wanting to get too theological, my very simple explanation for my definition of grace is something like unconditional love. Or, to use one of the definitions in the list that Rich provided, “the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god.” That’s my definition of grace, and I don’t expect it to be Rich’s, I simply expect him to understand that that is the context I used the word in.

On a personal note my entire Christian journey has been characterised by a struggle (and now I’m really sharing) to understand the concept of grace. For some reason it is very difficult to understand why God would love me without me earning that love. This struggle plays out in my relationship with God and with others – I always feel that I need to do something, or be someone, to be loved outright. In my relationship with God and in community with people who share my beliefs I have at times tasted just a small sample of that grace, and it is the reason I still believe what I do. It has been asked of me more than once, “why does someone as smart as you believe in God?”… My response is, because I have experienced his gracious love in an undeniably tangible way. That is my reality, and I cannot escape it.

Then, I mentioned that I wanted to explain my understanding of the word ‘church’ too. Church, as I understand it, is not a building. It’s not a set of rules, dogma and legalism arranged into various denominations either. I could care less for religion – its laws, its institutions, its rules. I believe that ‘church’ is a community of people who believe what you believe and want to share, learn, grow and worship with you in that belief. And ideally in a state of grace. So church can be me and two mates at Tashas over a cup of coffee, if need be. It can also be Rhema. And everything in between. But I make a big distinction between Church and Religion. Religion is fraught with powerful individuals trying to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. I don’t subscribe to that, not one bit. I’d like to believe that my friends have never experienced me as the kind of Christian who forces his beliefs on others, but at the same time as someone that is not afraid to call himself Christian.

I simply meant to say, by retweeting Yancey’s quote, that the church still has relevance in my faith journey because I experience some of God’s unconditional love through the community of believers I worship with. I haven’t experienced that unconditional love outside of that environment. Maybe I have been blind or naive, and I apologise if I come across short-sighted, but I have not. I have no doubt Rich and I will agree to disagree on this one, and I’m ok with that, what I am not ok with is him thinking that I am implying there is nothing good outside of the church. Rich, dude, that is just not true, and that is just not me.

Let the flaming commence… ;)

Update:

John van de Laar (@sacredise), who originally tweeted the Yancey quote I mentioned above, posted his response to the debate / conversation here – you may find it interesting.

  • http://www.jasonbagley.com JBagley

    Since Mr. Haralambous moved down to CT, we have become really good mates, despite the fact he to is a “military atheist” (quoting Nic. Wondering if Rich or Nic coined that one first! haha) and I a Christian.

    We have had the Athiest / God debate and I’ll be honest to say Nic’s argument is a lot stronger than mine as I do struggle to sometimes explain my journey and experience I have with faith and God. That being said, we have a really healthy respect for one another, with neither of us ever trying to push our views onto one another, more just express them.

    I suspect if I had the debate with Rich, it would come to the same conclusion – healthy respect and big man love for each other, even though we think/experience/believe very differently on the topic.

    My comment has nothing really to do with this exact debate that started on Twitter, but I just wanted to add this and also tick the “notify me of followup comments” :)

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      Thanks for the comment J – yeah Nic and I have had similar chats, and I deeply respect anyone who is willing to talk through the in’s and out’s of this obviously controversial subject with respect. It’s good having trusted friends with different views – keeps me on my toes :)

  • http://www.lebistro.co.za Ryan Brussow

    Thanks for this great post Mike.

    I’m an Atheist and feel exactly what you’re saying.

    Some of my best friends are Christian and we also, from time to time, debate the BIG topic but I must admit when debate is accompanied by intelligence it’s so much easier to understand and relate to someones opinion.

    I really enjoyed this read. Thanks @wernerdupreez

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike Stopforth

      Glad you enjoyed it bud – thanks for your comment

  • http://twitter.com/CrimsonZA CrimsonZA

    Fully agree.
    Personally, for a while now as I’ve “grown” in my beliefs as a Christian I’ve felt religion has gotten smaller and Faith has gotten bigger. So relatively I see church in the same manner as you.

  • http://richardmulholland.co.za Rich…!

    Thanks for writing the post, Mike, these things can really tend to clutter a stream, and also, some things are best said in more than 140 chars.

    First, understand that while I am about to attack things that some of you guys hold near and dear to yourself, my intentions are tough love.

    I respect many christians, but I have no respect and a great degree of contempt for their beliefs. I can’t stand when people tell you that you should stay quiet and respect other people’s religion/belief system – you need to understand to me it is completely absurd, like allowing a 16 y/old kid
    continue to believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

    There is no god, it’s a complete and utter fairy tale. I’m telling you this so that you understand the context pof my answers. Now to address your points one by one:

    1) Well it’s difficult to say much about your firstly except “fair enough”. The fact that it was a personal statement makes it doubly sad though. If you recall my original reply it was that I felt sorry for anyone who failed to find grace outside the church. I find it every day.

    2) This one is pretty nonsensical to me. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were referring to the definition of grace mentioned above, “the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god.”

    All of a sudden Yancey’s quote is completely ridiculous:

    “I left the church because I found so little freely given, unmerited favor and love of god there. I came back because I found the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god nowhere else.”

    Now… combine this with your extremely lose definition of church (I think you’re taking liberties here dude), all of a sudden it becomes even more absurd:

    “I left the community of people who believe what I believe and want to share, learn, grow and worship with me in that belief because I found so little freely given, unmerited favor and love of god there. I came back because I found the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god nowhere else.”

    Basically, I stopped hanging around with the community that digs god and then was surprised to find that the people that didn’t dig him din’t dig him.

    Mike you too are one of the smartest mo’fo’s I know – and you’re smarter than this.

    The grace Yancey was referring to was general grace, and the church he was referring to was, I guarantee you, not two mates shooting the shit about god over coffee at Taschas.

    3) I know I’ve touched on this point above, but there’s a specific point I want to challenge here. You attempt to separate religion from church, or church from religion. Firstly, this debate would have made a lot more sense had you reversed the words. i.e. I have religion, I just don’t believe in church. That is to say that you have a set of religious values that do not need an institution to validate them – however you couldn’t do that because it would have thrown a damper on your other definitions. But I digress…

    You can’t separate the two. The cold hard facts are simple:

    - You say you are a christian.
    - As such that means you believe that Jesus Christ was the living embodiment of god on earth.
    - The only knowledge we have of this dude is from a book called the bible
    - The bible was written by a church – the catholic church to be specific. Thus you do not get permission to say that your belief is independent of theirs because you’re reading their book – actually, that’s unfair, of course you have permission to say that – you’d just be wrong.

    Sure, you and your friends can shoot this religious crap until you are blue in the face, but everything you know about Jesus Christ was spoon fed to you by the church, or their pawns. Oh, and you talk about relationships with god – dude, every relationship I’ve ever heard of requires two way communication. I can categorically tell you that you have never received any communication from god. Do not confuse divine intervention with post hoc ergo propter hoc, that deus ex machina bullshit is just too easy.

    Lastly, I don’t believe your return to the church has anything at all to do with grace at all – I have my own ideas on that. That though, my good friend (I really do love this guy in case you doubted it) is something I’ll save for our next, long overdue lunch…!

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike Stopforth

      Lunch indeed!

      If I argue with you, I’ll lose. You are smarter than me, and you’ve spent far more time researching the non-existence of God than I have the existence of Him. You are the most gifted evangelical atheist I know.

      I have no proof that God exists. I have no proof that He does not. All I know is that I am convinced that I have experienced Him on a personal level. Have you stopped to ask yourself why I, being me, would bother to believe this if I didn’t have a compelling reason to?

      I’m not hedging my eternal bets – I’m not afraid of going to ‘hell’, or necessarily waiting with bated breath for ‘heaven’, I simply know that when in community with the God I believe in, I am the best version of myself today. Here on earth. Now. Just as you are convinced of the truth that God does not exist, I am convinced of the truth that he does.

      Thanks for your challenging thoughts – you really do encourage me to interrogate my frame of reference – and I’m the better for it ;)

      #manlove

      • http://kevipedia.wordpress.com Kevin Cadman

        Mike, this is an excellent reply. One thing I had to comment on was you calling Mike “one of the smartest people you know.”

        Whilst I don’t personally know Mike, I find it fascinating when intelligent people choose to believe in any sort of faith-based religion. It’s an interesting dichotomy – on one hand a person is able to make everyday decisions based on logic and probability, using all available information to choose the best outcome. However, when talking religion, if that person finds themselves in a corner and realises they’re not going to win an argument with an atheist, all logic and reasoning flies out the window and they’re able to fall back on a simply unchallengeable concept: faith.

        I detest the very existence of the word when used in any metaphysical context. It has somehow slithered its way into our dictionary and is used in ubiquity to explain something that cannot be explained with reason and logic.

        Intelligent conversations about religion are great, but there comes a point when the concept of faith is introduced, and as this is most certainly not a mutually accepted concept the conversation will always come to an abrupt halt, with both parties being no closer to any sort of proselytisation.

        Long live militant atheism! ;)

      • http://kevipedia.wordpress.com Kevin Cadman

        Whoops, that was supposed to be “Rich, excellent reply…” but hey, Mike, your reply was decent too. ;)

  • http://nicharalambous.com Nic

    Well this has been one of the most interesting reads on a blog for ages.

    Jason – appreciate you saying such kind things. I definitely do respect you and think we have had some solid debate recently.

    Mike – you and I have also had some fantastic debate, most recently centered around Die Antwoord’s “Evil Boy”.

    However – I have to categorically state that I agree with everything that Rich said. I respect both of you (Jason and Mike) greatly but fundamentally and unequivocally disagree with your belief in a being that no one, ever, has had any contact with, ever. Let alone proof that he/she/it exists. I truly do think that both of you are way too smart to believe in a 2000 year old fairytale.

    But this won’t ever prevent us from grabbing Nachos at Fat Cactus or a burger at Royale to debate the topic.

    Thanks for sharing your opinions guys. Incredibly interesting reading.

  • http://www.jasonbagley.com JBagley

    Sometimes you need a “fairy tale” to be able to sleep at night and then get up again in the morning. Some will call it a weakness, others strength.

    I guess when we die, then only will we know whose fairy tale came true.

    • Quatro

      Well if you’re equating your belief to a fairytale than I think you have already accepted your atheism :P

      Are you saying people use religious belief as a crutch?

      Once you’re dead it would be too late to change your mind though :(

      Peace.

  • http://www.imod.co.za Chris M

    “Maybe I have been blind or naive”

    NOT AT ALL.

    Until a person finds “unconditional love” from God, there will be a void in their soul.

    • Justin

      You’re certainly not full of grace.

      • haggiesm

        I think (or rather hope) what Chris is saying is, that we’re all deficient in some way, no matter what you believe. Which is why we need God. People often misunderstand what Jesus taught, or simply ignore it in favour of the stereotypical religious law, and put that label on Christianity. To me, religion means trying to be good enough – following the rules so that you may go to heaven etc. The bible shows God as the loving father he wants to be known as, who comes down to our level as human beings to establish a relationship. The result of that is that we want to be more like him, much like kids want to grow up to be like their dads. Obviously we fail and that is why we need God to fill the “hole in our souls”. I’m not suggesting for one second that Christians are better people, just explaining the belief.

    • http://www.locallist.co.za Jason Adriaan

      There is certainly something somewhat insulting about being thought of as someone that has some sort of intrinsic deficiency because he/she does not have religious belief.

  • xdoomx

    I am a ‘non practising’ believer, not sure if that makes me a Christian or not… (dont wanna give anyone a bad name)

    Just wanted to put in my 2 cents regarding grace. I saw it become a HUGE part of our band and church friends.. It changed people completely into what from the outside appeared to be unapologetic/unrepentful ‘Christians’.. To me it seemed that one who believes in grace believes that they have been ‘saved’ and now no longer needed to ask forgiveness because Christ has died for their sins already, done, sealed, and dusted.
    This thought process was revolutionary cos a lot of young people are involved with churches like NCMI which for ages seemed to teach ‘perfection’, trying to be sinless. When this grace message came along everyone felt like these shackles had been lifted and it was a revelation, when in fact all that had been happening is that the Bible had been misinterpreted/mistaught for so long to these kids.

    Today, some of the rudest people I know are these same Christians. They aren’t humble, don’t ever apologise, and even seem to be downright inconsiderate of their fellow man.. This I assume comes from the mindset that no matter what we do on earth now has no relevance: Christ has died for your sins, you will be forgiven, and you will get to heaven no matter what you do or how you act.

    All I can say as that your walk with God is a personal one. I’ve seen people come and go through a variety of phases. Your belief seems solid though, grounded and strong.
    My only word of advice is to read the Bible and not the countless other books sold as addendums and insight to the Bible. Its really not that hard to read or understand. Each and every word is RELEVANT, old and new testaments. It wasnt written to be the most difficult thing for us to understand. All your answers are in there, seriously.

    Now, all of this on top of seeing COMPLETELY where someone like Rich comes from. I almost can say I agree with him and I feel like an atheist too!

    Rich you may have heard about it already, and Mike you may enjoy it too.. being a punk rocker I highly recommend it as an insight into thoughts on this:
    1. Greg Graffins last book ‘Anarchy Evolution’
    2. His previous one: “Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant? A Professor and Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity”

    You will find a ton of stuff online, and video debates around these topics. Superbly interesting, and to me at least, highly relevant to what you guys are discussing.

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike Stopforth

      Thanks for your comment! I hear you, and will check out those books – they sound fascinating ;)

  • http://nicharalambous.com Nic

    Chris m – it’s that sort of dogmatic, ignorant and othering statement that proves my point. Don’t talk about a void in my soul. You perch there with your false hope and judge others.

  • http://Www.Tertia.org Tertia

    I am not a religious person. I don’t go to church. There is a lot about organized religion and the church that I have deep issues with. However, I have the greatest respect for any and all people who practice their faith with grace, respect and love for all human kind. Whether they are Christians, Jews or. Muslims

    In a way, I envy those who believe so completely, whether it is a fairy tale or not. I wish I had something so theoretically beautiful to believe in

    I don’t like people who hurt others in the name of their faith, but for the many others who find hope, love and a sense of belonging in their beliefs I have the greatest admiration.

    Good for you for sticking with your beliefs especially when so many are against what you believe. When it is so not fashionable to. Be a happy clapper. It might not be real (or it might be, I don’t know), it might not be something I find value in but if it feels right for you, then go for it. I thought it was a great post

    To the non-believers, let him be. Don’t disrespect his beliefs. Mikes a clever guy, if he has chosen to believe, let him believe. To compare his god to Santa claus or to a fairy tale is disrespectful to Mike. It is not his job to make you believe, it is not yours to make him disbelieve.

    Each to their own. As long as we have respect for each other, let’s keep our differences. Makes life a lot more interesting that way.

    Good for you Mike, you little Jesus lover. I shmaak you anyway, happy clapper or no happy clapper.

    Xxxxx

    PS typed on my iPad after half a sleeping tab so pls forgive spelling, grammar and general coherence.

    PPS bloody auto correct is a bitch

    PPPS Jason! How the fark do I scroll up in a text box? I have no way of seeing what I’ve typed at the beginning of my diatribe. where are the arro keys or the scroll bar? This thing will drive me to drink

    • http://www.jasonbagley.com JBagley

      @Teria – hahaha! I’ll send you a quick mail re: scrolling up on an iPad. It’s a bit of a hack, bit it works. :)

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike Stopforth

      Tersh you make me laugh ;) But thanks for your comment, and thanks too for your kind words, as always you rock!

  • Ruby

    Wow! Respect for writing a post on something this widely debated.
    It made me smile a lot because so much of what you say defines the way I live my life,what I’ve found and what I believe. I have faith because after all that’s happened in my life and all that I’ve experienced from Him I can’t not believe. Funny how most of my friends are also non-believers…..love the fact that it makes our friendships and conversations so much more interesting
    Awesome awesome post!

  • MAV3RIK

    I have to agree with Rich…!

  • http://www.marcforrest.com Marc

    Great post Mike.

    As someone who has recently returned to The Church after a prolonged absence, for a variety of reasons, including both my parents death, I understand where both sides of the debate are coming from.

    But Grace is evident in our daily lives…“the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god.” We all have Grace, it is just how we chose to display our Grace. Even if it is giving the dude at the robot your spare change.

    I for one am totally against the idea of forcing Christianity on people. It should be a decision we all make ourselves.

    But that said, I do have a question for the “Athiest” commentators. More a question built of curiosity ?

    What are YOU doing on Saturday ?

    • http://allankent.co.za Allan

      Same as every Saturday – laze about the pool, watch some movies, catch up on some work. The only thing I will be doing different is not going to the shops. For some strange reason they’ll be closed :)

    • http://www.locallist.co.za Jason Adriaan

      What is happening on Saturday?

      btw Xmas has less to do with Christianity than George Michaels has to do with Hetrosexuality.

  • http://pauljacobson.info Paul Jacobson

    This debate reminds me of that Rowan Atkinson skit where he plays the devil and points out that the Jews were right. :-)

    I’ve been thinking about some of this stuff for years like many of you have. A book I found really interesting years ago is Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not A Christian. It challenges the argument for a God and does it quite convincingly. While they are hardly serious academic treatments of the subject, I also took a lot from the Conversations with God books along the way.

    More recently I have been exploring some Buddhist principles. I look at some of our religious practices in Orthodox Judaism and it strikes me how much of that religious practice has the effect of focusing our attention on the moment and cultivating a stronger practice of being mindful of our actions, thoughts and deeds.

    I don’t know if there is a God or, if there is, whether she is anything like the biblical God. There are things about this life and my experience of it that challenge notions that there is nothing but what we perceive with our 5 senses. Those things may be a manifestation of God or something we just call God but I don’t believe that belief in God, per se, is essential. Religions teach a code of conduct and best practices which are often pretty good guidelines for a good life. I like many of the principles and guidelines in Judaism, I see it as a very practical religion and that works for me.

    I never went quite as far as calling myself an atheist and while I am interested in arguments leaning in that direction, they interest me because they challenge my own belief system and that is a good thing. My beliefs, such as they are, may be little more than my comfort blankie but there are guidelines in there that help me live a better life and be a better person. That is what counts for me.

    If people want me to respect their beliefs, they should respect mine. I don’t necessarily agree with Mike’s beliefs but I know Mike he is a good person and that is more important to me. I don’t have much respect or patience for people who insist I am wrong because I don’t share their beliefs or who tell me I am defective because I don’t follow a specific belief system. Do these people really believe that a supernatural being that created everything in existence is tied to a narrow set of beliefs and requirements largely focused on our belief in that being? Just a thought.

    Mike and Rich are two of the smartest guys I know and I respect them both tremendously. Interesting debate guys.

    Tertia, this was typed on my iPhone! Impressive huh?

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike Stopforth

      Thanks for the comment Paul – and for the kind words – and I couldn’t agree with you more when you say that “(you) don’t have much respect or patience for people who insist (you are) wrong because (you) don’t share their beliefs or who tell (you that you are) defective because (you) don’t follow a specific belief system.”

      Rich believes something, I believe something. Just as we might vote for different political parties, these differences in opinion need to be ok…

  • Dominic Monama

    thanx Rich and Nic for debating this topics in such a civil and intelligent manner. Personally as I read some Yancey books, the one that stayed on my mind till today is what’s so amazing about grace on which he takes a Christian perspective on the subject of Grace. being a Christian myself I obvious stroked a chord quickly but it’s got more interesting as he take us through the journey of some the injustices that took place against humanity and yet the violated still managed to forgive the perpetrators of those injustice. Using this Yancey showed us just how some cruelest moments evoked some very contrasting, unexpected responses. Some of this people were not necessarily be members of certain faith and this in my opinion this highlight a point that grace is abundance everywhere and God can use anyone/thing to deliver His Grace. the debate around the existence of God is most likely to rage on as long as there are human inhabiting the earth but personally as believer in Christ i have learned that Faith is forever questionable but is upon the individual who believe in what or who they believe to stay in that faith cause its only by faith that you can stay in Faith (could be confusing). This, I learned, through my journey of faith in God through Jesus Christ that logic has kept me wanting and wandering but my experiences of Life strengthened my Faith in God. Keep up the Good work Mike and all the contributors on this forum.

  • http://richardmulholland.co.za Rich…!

    Hey Tertia,

    You say that it’s disrespectful to compare Mike’s belief to Santa or a Fairy tale – I don’t see it that way at all.

    I see the concept of god as the biggest single scourge that exists in the world today, I believe that it should be seen as the oppiate for the masses that it is, and eradicated as such.

    To me, what you just said is akin to saying, oh just ignore those racist remarks that your friends make, respect their opinions. No, I won’t. I think that their comments are damaging to society at large.

    Also, to reverse your thinking, a christian saying that there is a god to me, is as disrespectful to my belief system as me saying that there isn’t one to them.

    I understand that you probably disagree with this statement, however it should clarify my thinking.

    Rich…!

  • http://twitter.com/antonyadelaar Antony Adelaar

    My first reaction to this post is: Respect. Mike, it takes ‘nads to post the kind of thing which makes you this vulnerable. Overt disbelief is occasionally just fashionable, and although a lot of strong words are being used in reaction I think we can all agree that Mike is the courageous one. He knew where this was going. Big up.

    There are a pile of intelligent people in this thread, many of whom I have respected for a while (even if we haven’t met yet). No-one on the list is about to do an about-turn on their fundamentals (or lack thereof) based on this (or any) blog. We’ll dig our heels in and agree to disagree, relatively politely, which is at least better than just disagreeing. There’s something for everyone though..

    As a Christian you will have a lot to answer for these days. On the one hand you have a very real relationship with your God which is difficult to explain, but also have to continually answer for the actions of the whole of ‘religious’ humanity. If it’s not the bloody crusades then its Catholic short-sightedness, abused altar boys, divorcing & money-hungry pastors, & aggressive intolerance of anything different to yourself. Human beings can really screw anything up given enough time, but this is why your faith is not in humans, right? Just as well. My advice would be to carry on doing good for the sake of it, be gracious and drop your intolerance for those who have a different lifestyle. And continue to pursue your God.

    There are some guys in this thread (@Rich, @Nic) who have thought long and hard about their position and it seems well-considered. Many atheists, however, manage their non-belief like some kind of a campaign, continually distributing material and sentiment, and it starts sounding insecure after a while. Surely if it’s something you don’t get then you just move on and stop pumping your emotional energy into it, and stop trying to save the silly believers from themselves? I don’t know, it seems odd sometimes.

    Both sides, despite being committed, will continue to get their ‘hands dirty’. Christians will continue to act gracelessly and make stupid decisions in the name of religion & intolerance. Atheists will continue to celebrate Christmas and go to carol services, with disapproving expressions. What’s ultimately important is that we keep talking and respecting each other’s positions.

    Finally, I’m a committed Christian, confident in my decisions and not threatened at all by such discussions. Let’s keep it going because we all have something to take away from it.

    I think we can all agree with @JBagley though: one day we will know. Have a blessed Christmas everyone :)

    @antonyadelaar

  • http://pauljacobson.info Paul Jacobson

    The comments to this post reveal an interesting trend when it comes to the representative atheists. If a religious person comments in absolute terms then he or she is criticized for taking an absolutist view of God but that is precisely what the atheists are doing: adopting an absolutist stance: there is no God, faith based belief systems are detrimental to society and anyone else who says any different is spreading harmful fairy tales.

    Rich, I don’t know what you base your arguments on and I’d love to have that conversation with you one day. Religion may be a mass delusion and there have been untold atrocities committed in the name of various religions and belief systems. At the same time a great many people have been inspired to do great and immensely beneficial things by their beliefs and faith. I know a couple people who are deeply religious and who are terrific people. They are inspired by their belief in their God to live better lives and work to benefit people around them. God may not exist but their religion provides them with a moral and ethical framework that is used beneficially.

    Adopting a firm and unwavering belief in the non-existence of a higher power is no better than adopting a firm and unwavering belief in the existence of a higher being. They are two sides of the same coin. Both points of view are based on a series of beliefs which appear to be truths. What concerns me is the need to attack people who do believe in a God or higher power and to actively seek to discredit them as if that will make the world a better place. That approach is no different to evangelists of different faiths who seek to convert unbelievers on pain of death or open ridicule. Ultimately you are pushing a perspective (again, which may be correct) without stopping to consider than even if the belief in God is a mass delusion, that belief does serve a good purpose where it’s adherents are inspired by that belief to do good.

    Besides, you could all be wrong and find yourselves being told by a representation of Rowan Atkinson in a smoking jacket that the Jews had it right all along!

    • http://www.richardmulholland.co.za Rich…!

      Paul, I’m not disputing that religion is a powerful motivator that does a lot of good as well as the bad. This however does not prove it’s validity. Only it’s power.

      And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • http://www.sacredise.com John van de Laar

    As the guy who started this all (I wrote the first tweet that Mike retweeted and mentioned above – :-) )there is so much I want to add to this awesome conversation, but it would have ended up being a VERY long comment. So, I decided to blog my responses. I hope the etiquette of that is ok?!

    If anyone is interested in reading it, you can find it here.

    Thanks for a great conversation, people. And for being brave enough to put it out there, Mike!

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      Thanks John! Apologies – I really should have mentioned that it was you who tweeted it originally. Thanks for the contribution.

      • http://www.sacredise.com John van de Laar

        No problem! I just loved reading the comments, and couldn’t resist jumping in!

    • http://nicharalambous.com Nic

      John – I’d love to reply to your blog post on your blog but I have to register to comment. So I’ll pop a quick reply here: Yes, I am referring to Christianity specifically since that is the context in which we were talking.

      However I do believe that the same rules apply to Judaism, Buddhism and any other god that is blindly believed in. They are man-made constructs whether branded Christianity, Hinduism or any other. Man-made, man-believed, man-constructed, man-written, conceived and maintained. There is nothing divine about any of it. It is all man-made.

      The ten commandments themselves are man-made, the bible even states this. They were not written by the hand of the Christian god but by the hand of Moses.

      The bible itself is also questionably divine: “The Bible is God’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers [human beings].”

      This theory applies to the Torrah, the Quran and any other supposed book of a lord. They are all written by the hand of a man and therefore man-made and constructed as well as perpetuated.

      If I have misunderstood something in the above, I am open to being corrected but as far as I understand it, there is no evidence of a divine soul/body/being/spirit writing anything, ever. Let alone the book that has dictated so many rules over so many years.

      • http://www.sacredise.com John van de Laar

        Thanks for your thoughtful response, Nic – and sorry about the comment issue on my blog. It should be sorted now.

        I’m not sure where my post implied that any religious book was divinely written. I don’t subscribe to the “divine writing” idea as you’ve described it. Rather, as you mention (and as I wrote in my post), the Bible was written by a number of human authors (the exact number is actually not really known, so I’m not sure where the 40 comes from?) over millennia.

        The question is whether they were inspired or not. I believe so – and many people, even those of no faith, believe in inspiration. The question then becomes: who does the inspiring, and how? Clearly, you and I have different answers to that question – and I’m ok with that. Are you?

        As for religion – I actually agree that religion is a human-made (women had something to do with it, too) construct. However, there are two further thoughts I’d add:

        1. Just because it’s a human construct, doesn’t mean it’s not true (and here, I’m not speaking of factual. I’m speaking of truth in the same way that love is truth). Democracy is also a human construct – and has nowhere really worked according to its ideals – but it is still true, isn’t it? (I do recognise that not everyone subscribes to the idea of democracy, but even this doesn’t negate its validity as a political theory).

        2. None of your comments above prove that God is a fairy tale, any more than I can prove that God isn’t a fairy tale. You make a case for the human origin of religious books and institutions – a case with which I agree – but you have made no case against the existence of God. you have only made a statement of faith that God doesn’t exist. And I celebrate your faith, as I celebrate mine (and would hope you would, too)

        For what it’s worth.

      • http://pauljacobson.info Paul Jacobson

        Nic, it’s worth bearing in mind that many traditions regard us humans as extensions of the Divine. If that is the case, everything we do is touched by the Divine, even if it is merely the exercise of some creativity. A lot depends on how we would conceptualize “Divine” and to the extent it exists, it may well be beyond our comprehension.

        You write about an absence of evidence of a God or divinity and yet there are many people who can’t help but see evidence of this everywhere they look and in every experience they have. They would likely regard your perspective as myopic. Your frame of reference becomes pretty important and you assume that evidence or absence of a God is something we can simply perceive by looking around or understanding using our conceptual frameworks. That may not be a valid assumption given the nature of what we are trying to understand.

  • Tim

    @ Rich!,

    I really don’t follow your logic in assuming that if you call yourself a Christian you can’t disagree with the Catholic church or what one might refer to generally as ‘The Church’. You argument seems to be that:

    You must hold exactly the same beliefs, and bear the same labels because:

    A: You have the same core beliefs.
    B: You read the same book.

    If we’re working under the assumption that 1) people are perfect and 2) the catholic church are perfect, then that argument might hold some weight. But the fact is that neither people, nor the institution of the church are. This gives freedom to the Christians to question both other Christians and the existing forms of the institutional church and there respective interpretations of scripture. Imagine if we had to agree with everything the South African government did or said just because we are all South Africans and we ascribe to the same constitution?

    Mike, you have balls of steel to open up this can of worms in the public forum :)

  • http://richardmulholland.co.za Rich…!

    Hey Tim,

    Sorry dude, you miss-understand me, granted I probably didn’t verbalise what I was saying very well. I’m saying that to have a belied in the concept of god independent of the church makes sense, but to have a christian belief system that is separate from a formal religion is slightly absurd seeing as everything christians know about JC the know from the writings of the church.

    Basically to a large degree the two go hand in hand…!

  • http://richardmulholland.co.za Rich…!

    Antony, you say “atheists will continue celebrating Christmas…” like it’s a christian day. You do know (everyone does) that Christmas is a pagan holiday of the sun repurposed years back by the church?

    Enjoy your pagan celebration too bro.

    Unfortunately I have to disagree with Jason about the fact that we’ll know when we’re dead. We won’t. We’ll be dead.

    I know it’s a horrible thing to say, but sometimes I wish that when you died you got a peak into the future just long enough for religious people (suicide bombers specifically) to say, “ah fuck, we were wrong!”…!

    • http://blog.ainslie.co.za Chris

      And, the funniest thing I’ve read on the internet this year:
      “…but sometimes I wish that when you died you got a peak into the future just long enough for religious people (suicide bombers specifically) to say, “ah fuck, we were wrong!”…!”

  • http://ewanscorner.com/ Ewan

    Adding my 5c, partly to thank Mike, Rich, John, Kevin and the other contributors for the interesting discussion, and partly to join in as a typically lurking Christian.

    As Antony said, it takes balls to stand up and state your opinion/belief/viewpoint when that stance makes you appear vulnerable, especially to people you like and respect. Being an atheist (militant or not) is currently trendy, being a Christian is not.

    I’m not a studied Christian, I’m not from a religious family and the majority of my friends are either agnostic or atheists, and I’m not the smartest kid on the block – but I do consider myself rational, logical and a sceptic :-)

    As Mike so eloquently put it:

    “I have no proof that God exists. I have no proof that He does not. All I know is that I am convinced that I have experienced Him on a personal level. Have you stopped to ask yourself why I, being me, would bother to believe this if I didn’t have a compelling reason to?”

  • http://blog.ainslie.co.za Chris

    Damn, I wish I had read this post earlier!! As usual, I was formulating my reply in my head while reading the post and then I read my reply just afterwards…. except it was written by Rich. Now he gets all the cool atheist kudo’s from the rest of the commenters, but I was going to say exactly the same thing! Hellfire and Damnation!!!! :-)

    This debate is much easier when done in person and face to face. The point / counterpoint method of written debate quickly falls down unless one is able to dedicate exhorbitant amounts of time to a carefully crafted reply. That, and the fact that since this is such a personal issue, it really can’t be debated between strangers without loosing most of its meaning. One needs to understand the personality and history of one’s opponent in a debate such as this and for that reason, my comments here don’t mean much. I have met Mike once (I’d be shocked if he remembers) at a 27dinner in Durban at our “waterfront”. It was the 27dinner where I stuck around too late and certainly drank too much, overall had a really good time and Mike had picked up the tab for dinner.

    So I’m not going to debate at all, I’ll just have my say! :)

    Anyway, long story short, I have a HUGE amount of history with religion and church, having grown up presbyterian and then joining a so called happy clappy church. What really resonates with me is that 10 years ago I could have WRITTEN every word of Mike’s post, right down to my dislike of religion and belief in the church of Acts. (Essentially, the concept that a bunch of mates together for lunch are a church). I played bass guitar in the church band and I led a home cell. I even led a few Sunday evening services.

    Today, I could have written Rich’s comment. Yep, that’s a 180 degree change.

    Neither my beliefs 10 years ago nor my beliefs now are in any way remarkable. Who cares? What is remarkable (to me) is the change. The time in between is what counts in a debate like this. It’s the time that describes why I have changed my beliefs, why I have changed my view on the world and just as importantly, how this worldview affects how I live. All these things are irrelevant to you who don’t know me so there’s no need to go into any detail. I’m not a better person now, but I’m certainly no worse.

    Suffice to say that 10 years ago I was ecstatically happy and now I am ecstatically happy.

  • http://www.dionforster.com Dion Forster

    Hi @Mike and @Rich,

    Thanks for the great post – it was worth reading.

    I am always pleased to have opportunities to engage in conversation with persons who hold a variety of differing views.

    I prefer to think of this as conversation rather than debate. Conversation places a higher value on persons than ideas. We converse to understand one another and grow in the process. Debates tend to be based on winning persons over to our strongly held convictions. Debates do not have a very high regard for other persons or their ideas.

    I have a sense that fundamentalism of all kinds favors debate (whether it be traditional religious fundamentalism, or the more recent scientific fundamentalism (more accurately termed empirical skepticism, popularized by Dawkins (who is perhaps the best known example of ‘scientism’) and Hitchens (who is one of the better known examples of a person who advocates anti-theism through secular humanism) – both of them fit the traditionally accepted description of fundamentalism, albeit anti-theistic or scientific, fundamentalism)).

    Fundamentalism favors debate over conversation because at some very basic level fundamentalists believe that their ideas are fundamentally correct; in fact they are so fundamentally correct that anyone who doesn’t accept their perspective has something wrong with them. Such a perspective is dangerous. It is the source of much conflict and hatred. Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins propagate any form of hate or violence – I think they are both too enlightened and intelligent for that. However, I have certainly heard some lesser informed followers come extremely close to hate speech and persecution of persons who hold differing perspectives.

    What is certain, however, is that while Hitchens and Dawkins (and many other skeptical empiricists) have good arguments for scientism and secular humanism, and they even point out some of the dangers of religious extremism and naivete, they have one fundamental shortcoming – they are unable to see that their perspective is not the final word on belief (or the lack thereof). In short, they are fundamentalists who seek to win others over to their point of view, and they do so with the vigor, charisma and intellect of some of the most prominent religious leaders of the ages. They publish, they speak at conferences, they fund projects, they solicit popular response and cultivate a likeminded following. Indeed, I would agree with Mike that there are some militant atheists among their ranks.

    Because of the dangers of fundamentalism I would myself not to hold my views too concretely – simply because I know that I have often been wrong.

    I would like to encourage you to converse with one another, engage robustly, speak and more importantly listen, in doing so we may grow together. Perhaps it is the case that we are closer to the truth when we are asking questions than when we are giving answers.

    In addition to the above, I would like to make a comment about the fallacy that Christians and atheists do not have anything in common.

    Mike, as you may know my Doctoral and post doctoral work crossed the disciplines of science and theology – in short I investigated the neurobiology of identity and belief. The human brain has 5 a-prioiri neurological pathways, one of them is the transcendent or holistic pathway. Humans are wired for belief. Even before we are socialized we have a basic need to make meaning of our world as we experience it.

    We all perform this task in unique ways – for some this meaning comes through reliance upon a community (for example a Church or a cultural group), for others it comes through a set of ‘framing beliefs’ (for example Christianity, Islam, secular humanism or scientism).

    In short, our basic makeup shows us that we are all ‘believers’ of some sort or another. Rich, you have a set of beliefs that frame your life, your interactions with others, your goals etc. One can tell quite a bit about your beliefs from your comments above, as one can from Mike’s comments.

    All beliefs are ultimately an act of faith. Dawkins’ fascinating book ‘The God Delusion’ was released while I was still a lecturer at the University of Pretoria. I read it both as a scientist and as a theologian. Dawkins has a highly developed scientific theology – he bases his perspective on the world on what he has discovered through his scientific inquiry. What he will not admit, of course, is that science (like faith) is based upon the belief that there are certain binding principles, or laws, that regulate life. He uses his belief in this set of principles to regulate his life, and encourages others to follow his lead. He goes further in that he suggests that other sets of principles are false and harmful, and that persons should ‘convert’ from their perspectives to his. He regards his set of principles more worthy than others because they meet the criteria of science (basically they are identifiable and repeatable, which is the essence of empiricism).

    Amazingly religious persons apply the same criteria for the principles that regulate their lives – they are identifiable and repeatable. The section that follows comes from a post I wrote on the neurobiology of belief (see the comments).

    Of course I use the word belief in a very broad sense here, namely that you, like me, have adopted a certain understanding of reality (based on your rational inclusion and exclusion of ideas and experiences) and your place within reality. This framework of belief (whether it is scientific, humanist, rationalist, religious, spiritual) shapes your understanding of time, the world, and the interactions between different aspects of the world.

    This adopted and developed framework of meaning arises out of an interaction between the subjective and objective aspects of your being (objective aspects are things such as the biological functions of the brain, subjective aspects are the less tangible results of those functions, such as memory, consciousness, identity etc.). Some would distinguish these aspects from one another with descriptive phrases such as spirituality (subjective) and science (objective), or psychology (which considers the ‘mind’ of the subject) and sociology (which considers the actions of the objective community)… Language (both as a function of understanding in a subjective sense, and as a function of connecting and communicating in an objective sense) has caused us to believe that these things are separate and in some sense irreconcilable. I think this is a mistake.

    Science is no more reliable than religion (and of course I would concede that the converse is also true, religion is no more reliable than science). Both approaches to meaning rely the acceptance of hypotheses that are tested, when they are found to be objectively verifiable (by whatever means is generally accepted) we adopt them as ‘foundational truths’ (or beliefs). However, such truth is relative in the face of eternity and ever increasing discoveries of complexity.

    Take the example of Newtonian physics in relation to quantum theory. Before the discovery of relativity theory and the EPR effect poplurised by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (or the tunnelling effect which accounts in some sense for the duality between waves and particles), we believed that Newtonian physics was an absolute scientific certainty. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle shifted that a little. However, that did not stop us from believing that in certain contexts Newtonian physics is true (for example we need that certainty when we’re building bridges), yet in other circumstances we know that it is not true.

    My point is simply this, I have great respect for persons who have framed their beliefs differently to mine, whether they be from a different religious tradition (like Ghandi), secular beliefs (such as Hitchens), scientific beliefs (such as Dawkins).

    Rich and Mike, what we have in common is that we are all believers. Because we care about what we believe, and we care about others and what they believe, we will spend time thinking, reading and writing about it. That is good!

    I don’t want to presume that I will ever be able to give a conclusive answer to faith (or those who believe they have no faith) – this is as implausible as having a symphony that makes all future music unnecessary. I look forward to many new arrangements, many new compositions – I will enjoy some, and others won’t be my taste.

    Like Mike and Jason I am a follower of Christ. Because of that I care more about people than my understanding of what is true. I think that is the way of grace.

    I would love to take this conversation further.

    Conspiring for hope!

    Dion

  • http://pauljacobson.info Paul Jacobson

    I’ve just been re-reading a couple comments to the post and while this debate is starting to go on a bit, a quote came to mind which I want to share. I first heard this from a really smart forensic scientist: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

  • Jon Foster-Pedley

    Thanks for posting this very thoughtful piece Mike.

  • http://www.netstudio.co.za alwyn

    Someone said check out Rich he’s clever. So I google and click and land here.

    I’m somewhat disappointed, Rich. You were clever enough to point out that the bible was written by the Roman Catholic church, but failed to point that they did not write it but just made a selection from a menu, of books that was written centuries before.

    The Roman catholic church of that time compared to the one today looked as different as the National Party of 50 years ago to the one of today.

    Even in that time people who chose not to belong to a church read the books and tuned their lives to it.

    If the church got you as a free thinker to believe that they own religion, how deep is your thoughts on the subject really.

    Kudo’s for finding Grace in the church Mike, the church almost killed me and I had to step back to find God first.

    The church need people like you.

    Regards

  • http://prestonmedia.blogspot.com James Preston

    Mike, this post is brilliant. It epitomizes a worldwide revolution we find ourselves in as “the church” realizes how they were meant to live and what they were meant to believe about Christ. Everything He did. Nothing we can. All sin and failings atoned for. Once for all. If only the church could catch that, everything would change.

  • http://www.jacquesdubruyn.com Jacques

    @Rich…!

    I think your argument is great and that you have great passion for what you believe.

    I must just say that I think it is quite closed minded to say that the only proof we have of Jesus is the bible?

    “The only knowledge we have of this dude is from a book called the bible
    - The bible was written by a church – the catholic church to be specific. Thus you do not get permission to say that your belief is independent of theirs because you’re reading their book – actually, that’s unfair, of course you have permission to say that – you’d just be wrong.”

    The bible was not written by the church, it was written by mostly Jews thousands of years ago which was compiled by a church. Most of the guys who wrote the bible had first hand experience and witness of God and this man called Jesus. The Gospels for one are written over a 60 years period and align quite suspiciously dont you think? Even the prophecy that is spoken in the old testament comes true- thats quite freaky hey?

    Also I’m not sure if you are aware that every time you write the date you are acknowledging the existence of Jesus- BC/AD ?

    Also mostly every major religion on earth acknowledge the fact that Jesus lived;

    -Buddhism teaches that Jesus was not God but rather an enlightened man
    - Hinduism does not consider Jesus to be the only God but rather a good man
    - Islam teaches that Jesus was merely a man and prophet
    - Mahatma Gandhi said “I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus…”
    - Jews believe that Jesus is the messiah but that he is still coming
    - Scientology says that Jesus was an implant forced on a thetan about a million years ago
    - Unitarian Universalism teaches that Jesus was not God but rather an incarnation of Mister Rogers?? haha

    Fairy Tales always become … well… fairy tales… Like for instance The Roman and Greek gods… they were revered and honoured… but today Zeus is a story- thats what happens to fairy tales..

    To say that Jesus never existed is a little bit closed minded- If every major religion believes he existed, your calendar says so, and people wrote about him thousands of years before he came and continue to write about him thousands of years after he left then surely he did?

    The big question is not whether he existed but rather whether he was God or a good man? Lets be honest, Jesus is the most spoken about, most hated, most written about, most sung about, most “sworn” about, most debated man in history… quite a profile for a fairytale heh?

    It comes down to this;

    Either Jesus was a raging lunatic or God. You dont crucify a good man with good teachings do you? You either crucify a raging lunatic or God… I choose to believe that he is God- you have all the right to believe he was a raging lunatic…

    • http://www.richardmulholland.co.za Rich…!

      Hey Jacques,

      Okie dokes, so here’s my point-by-point on your point-by-point :)

      Sorry, if I wasn’t clear, I was referring to the Jesus section of the bible, as in the New Testament. The bible was packaged by the church allegedly based on the commentary of the disciples.

      While this era of history/location was highly documented, only one historian mentioned a character called Jesus.

      Actually, the gospels don’t align very well at all. If anything this is a plus for your side, you’d have expected the church to fix that. There are items in the bible, “let he who has never sinned cast the first stone” that only made it into the scriptures 1000 years later i.e. added by man (this is undisputed, even by learned theists). The bible itself is so contradictory that as proof of anything it is useless.

      The BC/AD comment is completely absurd. I’m acknowledging the use of the gregorian calendar that our society follows, this calendar was put in place by Pope Gregory at a time when the catholic church had much influence. This no sooner proves the existence of Jesus than does the fact that society celebrates Christmas (a pagan holiday).

      What really amazes me is that you are using other religions as a means to prove to an atheist that Jesus existed. Eh?

      Especially given that none of these religions acknowledge Jesus as the messiah. Thus if I’m willing to say that I accept the testament of the majority of the world’s religions that a guy called Jesus did actually exist (which I’m happy to do). Then as the presenter of this proof I would expect you also to bow to the wisdom of these religions and admit that Jesus was absolutely not the messiah/son of god.

      You can’t have it both ways bro. They’re either a credible source, or they’re not. If they are only half right, then why do you get to decide which half? Besides, the numbers are against you there.

      Your final argument is by far the best though. You do understand that in those days people were crucified for just about anything don’t you? You’re basically saying that all the people that were crucified were either lunatics or god? Really?

      What about a loud mouthed dissenter that committed what was perceived to be blasphemy at the time? I’m not saying that was the case, there is literally no detailed historical writings outside of the bible that mention that a dude called Jesus was crucified. In fact some scholars dispute even the biblical interpretation of crucifixion (the word wasn’t used, but rather suspension).

      Seriously, this is just too easy dude.

      ps. give this a read: http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

      • http://www.jacquesdb.co.za Jacques

        Rich

        First off I must commend you, you bring a really solid case to the table. I really think you’re smart :-)

        In the same way that you say “What really amazes me is that you are using other religions as a means to prove to an atheist that Jesus existed. Eh?” – I’m saying really… you direct me to a site called “nobeliefs.com”. I read the “proof” and all I got from it was exactly what you would get from a pro-Jesus site, and that’s subjectivity. Here is a pro Jesus site with overwhelming proof for his existence; http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html – so I’m sorry but that argument of yours holds nothing for me.

        Yes I agree with you- the Gospels do have differences, read all four gospel’s accounts of the discovery of Jesus’ tomb being empty- they all present a different story… one says Peter was there, the others say Mary was there with John etc… but the fundamentals of the faith ie; Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus was crucified and was raised again are revealed in all four.

        Having said that I do understand that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe….” 1 Cor 1:18

        Perhaps my argument about the calendar is weak… I’ll accept that, along with the argument about the other religions…

        But perhaps I should just tell you why I believe… first off take Jesus out of the equation… take it right back to creation. I for one really battle to believe that the universe created itself. Quantum Mechanics and Physics describes and outlines how the universe could possibly have created itself from nothing… I’m cool with that bit. All of science will confirm that if the universe created itself, it did so within a certain set of laws… and as Paul Davies (an athiest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies) states, these laws that governed the creation of the universe are omniscient, omnipotent and immutable… I’m sorry dude… but I cannot for one second believe that the universe created itself AND created the laws that governed its creation? The Anthropic Principle describes the phenomenon of the universe with three outcomes 1- there are multiple universes 2- there is only one and it all happened by chance/randomly 3- there was a creator….

        That’s where I get stuck… I truly and honestly believe that God created the laws which governed the creation of the universe… I just happen to believe the rest of the story too… call me naive ;-)

        But having said all that- I totally respect your opinions…

  • http://richardmulholland.co.za Rich…!

    Hey Jacques,

    You’re in luck, a scientist called Richard Dawkins has written a book that explains exactly how this all can and did happen. I strongly encourage that you give it a read/listen (I did the audible version). It’s called “the greatest show on earth”:

    Amazon: http://is.gd/m5Grrq
    Audible: http://is.gd/05E8RT

    I’m not being facetious here, I really do hope you’ll give it a look.

    What troubles me is that you say that you struggle to believe in a scientifically viable theory regarding the creation of the universe, so you turn instead to man-made doctrine full of holes and inconsistencies that involves a super-natural being who has created the world for sport, as your alternative.

    You do understand though that this is a far cry away from the point of the original post though?

    :)

    • http://www.jacquesdb.co.za Jacques

      Hi Rich

      I actually have read that book – He is a great thinker. I think the operative word in your first paragraph is “can” not “did” ;)

      Unfortunately you will have to remain troubled by my belief.

      I’m going to be very cliche here; agree to disagree?

      Yes, the topic has drifted quite far from the original post. it ends here.

      Hope to chat again soon Rich, about other stuff too ;0)