No Coincidences

Tag: atheism

  • Are We Living in the End Times?

    Are We Living in the End Times?

    A simple Google search led to something I found very funny. My attention was caught by a headline for a link, “Do you believe Jesus will return to Earth?”

    Yes, yes, I do. But do others?

    This article was from December 2022, and it was a Pew research poll asking U.S. adults that simple, yet complex and extraordinarily important question: Is Jesus returning to Earth? (You know, just the question, is the Creator and God of this Earth gonna, you know, come back, ever? Not a big deal).

    What I came across was so funny I had to share it. The Google search was “are we in the end of times?”

    The fact that others believe we’re close to the end, as I do, did not surprise me, or make me laugh.

    What made me laugh, was this:

    That’s one confused atheist.

    For the record, “Atheist – a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”

    “Agnostic – a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.”

    So I guess the agnostic through some mental gymnastics could say they believe Jesus Christ is coming back to earth.

    But man, do I want to meet that atheist! I have a lot of questions.

    So, are we living in the “End Times?”

    I think undoubtedly, we are. I go back and forth on how soon that will be. For the record, we’ve been in the “end times” for decades. This is the last dispensation, and we know it will happen soon. Soon is a relative term and whether soon is 5 years or 100, it will still be soon. I have a hard time believing this system we find ourselves in can last much longer. How much longer can greed, corruption, war, and famine last before the system falls apart?

    I’ll stop there. Beth tells me I’m being depressing with this topic again. Until next time.

  • What do we believe in?

    What do we believe in?

    My Aunt Lindsey often asks the question, “What do you know?” I usually respond, “Not much.”

    What do we really know? Anything?

    While reading Mosiah chapter 26, I came across an interesting commentary from Hugh Nibley, one of my favorite scholars. The commentary was on Mosiah 26:15 which reads:

    “Blessed art thou, Alma, and blessed are they who were baptized in the waters of Mormon. Thou art blessed because of thy exceeding faith in the words alone of my servant Abinadi” (emphasis added).

    In considering that phrase, “in the words alone of Abinadi”, Hugh Nibley asks, “Now what about childish faith? What about being gullible, etc.? Alma believed in the “words alone”? Alma saw no evidence, no proof, or anything like that? And it wasn’t the words of God; it was the words of Abinadi alone that he believed in? What’s going on here? Why is there merit in this?”

    He continues, “There is merit because Alma believed in his words alone. I would emphasize his. You are blessed because of the things you choose to believe-not by the act of believing, not just by faith. You weren’t blessed because you believed, but because you chose what to believe. Everybody chooses what to believe. The atheist is a very strong believer. He is the most passionate arguer you can possibly find, and the positivist. Where will you find greater faith and firm conviction than among economists? . . . You must believe in something, and everybody does. But the Lord said, blessed are you [Alma] because of the things you chose to believe; you chose to believe in the things that Abinadi taught.”

    I’ve written before about The Faith of an Atheist.

    What do we believe in?

    This is an interesting statement by Hugh Nibley. The idea that it isn’t our faith that is important. Everyone has faith in something. It is what we have faith in. What do we choose to believe? Do we choose to believe that this is all one dumb coincidence and we’re all here for no real reason? Or do we believe in a Savior who redeems us, a Father who loves us, and an eternity of potential?

    Like a lot of things, it’s really about agency. What do we choose to believe in? Alma chose to believe in something good, hopeful, eternal.

    People who leave the church – are they better for it? This is going to upset some people. But in my opinion, no, people aren’t better for leaving the Church. That’s not absolute, of course. Some who leave the church still donate constantly to good causes, serve others, love others, and use their time in helping others. More often than not, I don’t think that’s the case.

    Many who leave the church, instead of turning their focus to good, hopeful, and helpful things, spend the rest of their lives trying to bash, destroy, and talk negatively about the church. Why is that? If leaving the Church of Jesus Christ is a good thing, why doesn’t more good come from it instead of more negativity? Why is tearing down something, whatever your feelings on it, that brings others hope and joy, a good result?

    Is it easy to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ? With the number of people my age deciding they don’t care for the Church, or any church, I’d say membership in the Church of Jesus Christ is not super easy. A lot of people say, “The church doesn’t do anything for me.” The Church isn’t about what it can do for you. It’s about what you can do for others. When you leave the Church, what do you do for others?

    Leaving the Church is complicated. I’m not trying to oversimplify it too much. But what I think gets lost sometimes is that leaving the Church is often a selfish choice. At least it was for me. I don’t want to have to get up early for church on Sunday. I don’t want to use my Saturday morning helping an elderly person move their belongings. I want to drink. I don’t have time for a church calling like teaching a class, working with the youth, or organizing group activities. I definitely don’t have time for ministering. Yeah, checking on a couple people every so often to make sure they’re doing OK, and really help them if they say they need something, don’t have time for that. I don’t want to pay 10% of what I earn anymore. The list goes on. Someone leaving the Church NEVER thinks this way (or won’t admit it). It’s about historicity or “what they feel” or feeling lied to or CES letter blah blah. I’m not trying to say that those things can’t be hard for people. They are, and I understand that. But often, it comes back to I, when the Church’s main goal is to help us see outside of ourselves.

    Now let’s be clear. Simply going to church isn’t enough. There are plenty of people who go to church on Sunday, leave, and call themselves stalwart disciples of Christ. You may be worse off than the nonbeliever in that case. It may be worse to believe and turn away the sick and needy than to choose not to believe.

    Does some small historical question, or some big historical question, distract you from a plan called “the Plan of Happiness”? Do you choose to worry about a statement by Brigham Young or some question about Joseph Smith? Do you disregard the miraculous book that was written, the testimony of a Savior of the world, an account of that Savior visiting His children in America? Do you ignore the hopeful and positive miracles because you have doubts?

    What do you choose to believe in?

  • The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    This is a version of an essay I wrote for a science and religion course. That’s why it has such an “official” tone, and the headlines. I don’t share this because I think it’s an extraordinary essay. But I do think I made some decent points about the “God issue” in science. When you spend this much time writing an essay that fits the theme of your blog, it’s just gotta be shared. So here’s my essay on intelligent design, evolution, and God.

    Intelligent Design and Evolution

    God is the center of the debate between science and religion, and in particular the debate between the theories of evolution and intelligent design. To claim any other conflict ahead of the question of whether God exists is to distract from the root cause that separates these theories. If the question of God’s existence could be solved one way or another, then evolution and intelligent design could coexist and potentially benefit one another. Unfortunately, the existential question of God will never be solved by science. Therefore, with God being the center of the issue, exploring the “God issue” between evolution and intelligent design is the best way to help the two theories reconcile with one another, even if the true question, “does God exist?” is never answered.

    The God Question

    Believers of evolution and believers of intelligent design have more to agree upon than is often realized. However, there is one topic or question that creates a gulf between the two fields. That question is: Does God exist? When evolutionists and intelligent design proponents come to understand this as the main question that separates them, it may be possible to relate and coexist, and therefore grow as fields of knowledge alongside one another. It is the loud voices of ardent atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett who pronounce aggressive disbelief in God, and it is the loud and passionate voices of creationists who oppose belief in the undeniable evidence of evolution that create this void (Wolf, 2006). The milder, middle-of-the-road voices get drowned out by the louder minority. The believer in intelligent design who accepts the facts of evolution and the believer in evolution who can see the merits in intelligent design theory are the voices that bring these two fields to an agreement that benefits both. Intelligent design need not deny many aspects of the theory of evolution. Evolution need not devalue the merits of the theory of intelligent design. At the root of the conflict is the belief in God. Coming to understand God as the major issue and question can bring both sides into more agreement, or at the very least, a middle-ground of mutual understanding.

    Historical Belief in God

    The thinking of the world has transitioned aggressively from a belief in God. While there has been a movement away from God, especially in scientific communities, as can be illustrated in countless scholarly writings such as The God Delusion (Dawkins, 2006) and Why Intelligent Design Fails (Young & Edis, 2014), a large portion of the world still believes in some higher power, some creator that put humans on this earth. It is nearly impossible for a firm believer in God to remove that innate belief from their consciousness.

    In the book The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen (2011) discusses John Locke’s famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding. “In it Locke pointed out that it defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a result of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. All of these are the product of intelligent design and high-precision engineering” (Skousen, 2011, pp. 95-96). Locke’s thinking agrees with the teleological argument of intelligent design put forth by William Paley in the 1700s (Crashcourse, 2016). Locke continues to expound on this topic by pointing out how a man can come to know God exists. Skousen concludes with Locke’s thinking, “And because any thoughtful person can gain an appreciation and conviction of these many attributes of the Creator, Locke felt that an atheist has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation” (Skousen, 2011, p. 97).

    These examples from Locke are used to illustrate a point. It was not long ago that disbelief in God was deemed a ludicrous proposition. It wasn’t long ago that these theists were the louder voices. Historically, those with no belief in God have been discriminated against and ridiculed similarly to how science ridicules belief in God today. Ridicule of the belief of God is as counterproductive today as the ridicule of not believing in God has been throughout history.

    Attack on God

    An outspoken opponent of theism in the scientific community is Richard Dawkins. One of the basic attacks Dawkins uses against God is comparing belief in God to belief in any number of mythical creatures. Dawkins often refers to belief in God as being similar to believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster (Dawkins, 2006). Dawkins says that because people believe in something ridiculous like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, doesn’t mean he has to accept it. This analogy is not close to comparable. There aren’t books handed down for centuries about belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t a majority of the world population believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. We don’t have any support for the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. This is just one example of an unfair attack from the “militant atheism” that Dawkins proposes (Dawkins, 2008).

    Scientists like Dawkins ignore the evidence that does exist out there because it doesn’t suit their needs or beliefs. This is the opposite of scientific progress and something Dawkins is “militantly” opposed to. There are many unexplained phenomena with adequate scientific evidence behind that scientists like Dawkins disregard simply because it’s phenomenal and they can’t understand it. Take, for example, near-death experiences. The catalogs and books being put together of people of different cultures, ages, demographics, and backgrounds all detailing a similar experience is dismissed out of hand. Science is based on observation. If any other phenomena like gravity or momentum had as much documented support as near death experiences that have been cataloged, scientists would explore further, not dismiss automatically.

    Another main critique of intelligent design is that the theory mentions design without defining who the designer would be. The reason intelligent design refuses to mention the designer is obvious. The mere mention of God is liable to get extreme backlash from the scientific community. Furthermore, it leaves the concept open to the many interpretations of the nature of God and who the creator may be across varying religions. This is an example of why the attack on God is counterproductive. It creates the dynamic where intelligent design theory talks about an ambiguous “designer” without simply stating that the designer is a theorized divine creator. God is the answer to the question of who the intelligent designer would be, and yet because of the aforementioned loud minority, God is not specifically mentioned. The issue is that while so many believe in this designer, in and out of the scientific community, no one can say the name for fear of being criticized.

    Intelligent Design within Evolution

    There is plausible proof of many elements of evolution. However, this does not remove the possibility of the influence of intelligent design. That is to say, it is conceivable that the world can evolve while also having the influence of an intelligent designer that planned for this evolution and progression. The two theories need not be at odds with one another. Intelligent design and evolution both have holes and flaws in their theories as Darwin himself admitted (Leddra, 2010). Neither theory is perfect. If either theory were perfect, there would be a definitive answer. That’s why they are still classified as theories. The conflict really comes down to one question: is there a God? This is where the entire conflict between intelligent design and evolution lies. That question will not be answered decisively by either science or religion.

    Science will not answer whether God exists. That will always be a matter of faith. If that question is answered it will mean that God has revealed Himself and His purpose, as science will never disprove God. This is obvious, for you cannot prove that something does not exist. If there is a God and He reveals Himself and His purposes, designs, and methods to humanity, then the conflict between intelligent design and evolution will instantly become a moot point. Humanity will know for a fact how living things came to be. The question of if they evolved, how they evolved, and God’s role in it, and these debates between intelligent design and evolution will become null and void. 

    Conclusion

    These examples showing the change in how God is perceived in both society and science, and how science has changed in the attack on God, go to show the underlying cause of all the controversy. It is ultimately about the existence of God. We can conclude, then, that it is extremely important for religion and science, and their respective theories, to consider how they can coexist with one another. By rejecting even the possibility of a God, science limits itself and its ability to explore the universe. By rejecting evolution, the theory of intelligent design limits its ability to coexist with science. Science will benefit by cooperation between the theories of intelligent design and evolution. This cooperation ultimately hinges on finding a way to reconcile the question of God, for the ability of all theories to progress to their fullest potential, and the furthering of knowledge for humanity.

  • Faith of an Atheist – Bouncing Atoms

    Faith of an Atheist – Bouncing Atoms

    What does an atheist have faith in?

    We all have faith. We have faith that we eat, and the food will sustain our body. We have faith that we drink, and the water sustains our body. We have faith that we breathe, and air sustains our body. We have faith that we will move, and it happens. Every act of our lives is an act of faith.

    As Lectures on Faith Lecture First says: “without [faith], both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental.”

    Whether you believe in a Creator or not, this fact remains: all have faith. The only question is: what is your faith in?

    I previously wrote about the faith of an atheist HERE. That post talks about the hope of an atheist. What about the faith?

    If we all live by faith, what does an atheist have faith in?

    The only thing I can think that an atheist has faith in is their self.

    When you remove God from the equation, what else is there? There is you, your mind, your thoughts, your supremacy. Not only that, if there is no God, then this all just happened by chance. You are a product of random chance, with no meaning. You are an object with atoms inside of you bouncing around causing you to do things. If this is all by chance, there is no free will. If there is no God and we are all happenstance, if we are all a great coincidence, then we are Gods, and there are no Gods. There is nothing. There is no point.

    A lack of a belief in God is a lack of belief in anything. If this life is not about a bigger plan then it’s all pointless.

  • Faith of an Atheist

    Faith of an Atheist

    I recently heard something I found interesting.  “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

    This statement came from a religious person who was speaking with a person who said they were an atheist.

    The religious person asked, “Do you hope you’re wrong?”

    The atheist replied, “Yes, I do.”

    The religious person replied, “Good, otherwise you would be hoping for something that is inherently bad, so that’s good, your hope is for something good.”

    Hope.

    Can we hope for something bad?

    The atheist went on to say that he used to be “very Christian.”  But he just doesn’t believe it anymore.  He doesn’t believe there is any life after this.  But he hopes there is.  I find that sad.

    What’s the evidence he relies upon to have a belief that nothing exists after this life?  He couldn’t say.  Just a feeling.  He just didn’t believe it anymore.

    I find that extraordinarily sad.

    Why would we believe one thing and hope for another?

    I’d love for an atheist to have this discussion with me.  Not to argue.  For me to try to understand.

    The religious individual went on to say he didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.  He didn’t have enough faith to believe that the infinite amount of coincidences that needed to happen for this earth to be formed and for life to flourish on it, he didn’t have that faith.  It was much easier for him to have faith in a supreme creator that built and made this all work.

    I found that to be an interesting point.  Is it easier to believe there was a BANG and the jigsaw puzzle fell together?  Or is it easier to believe there is One God?

    You know where I stand on this.

    No Coincidences.