The Legitimate Points of Rhett McLaghlin

On Monday 2/3/2020, Rhett and Link released the most recent podcast episode in a series where they break down their spiritual journeys. I listened to it and would highly recommend anyone do the same. Though make sure you start with the first episode entitled “Our Lost Years” (you can find a link at the bottom of this post). Fair warning, this series of podcasts may shake your beliefs, but if you intend to make an informed decision about God then you owe it to yourself, and anyone you try to share the Gospel with, to listen to this. Yesterday, today is 2/4/2020, was Rhett’s story and Next Monday is Link’s story, which I look forward to. 

I’m going to be straight with you all, my story is a lot like Rhett’s. I’ve asked the same questions and suffered through the same crises. I relate to Rhett’s story a lot, and in yesterday’s episode, Rhett presented the most respectful, rational, honest, and valid list of reasons I have ever heard to not be a Christian. I agree with him on every point, and yet, there are a few key differences between his story and mine that are why I remain a Chistian. No, I am not better than him because of this. My reasons are no more or less valid than his. They are just different. Whether my reasons for remaining a Christian are better than his reasons for leaving is a matter up for each person to decide for themselves, but this blog post is not about that. This blog post is going to be less a criticism of Rhett’s story and more of a criticism of modern Christianity in light of the very legitimate criticisms Rhett has brought to the table. 

Let me start by posing this question to all of my Christian readers. Is it possible for a limited and flawed human being, to have a complete and flawless understanding of an unlimited and flawless God? I suspect that most would be inclined to answer “no”, if not, I’m not sure anything I have to say will mean anything to you. If you answered “no”, then that would mean that you recognize a difference between God as you understand Him and God as He actually is. This means that there will come a time when you stand before God and find that He is not exactly who you expected Him to be. 

You may be more correct than others were, but you will still be faced with the fact that you were wrong to some extent. I have no way of knowing how this will be resolved, but I imagine God will know whether you truly desire Him as your Lord or if you prefer the idol of your limited and faulty understanding.

Let me pose you another question. What then makes you any different then the non-Christians who will find themselves standing before a God they do not know? If your answer is that you accepted Jesus and your Lord and Savior and they didn’t, read my first question again but this time replace the word God with the name Jesus. He remains the only way to life, the only truth, but suddenly humanity is on a more level playing field; there is truly not one who is fully correct and fully faultless, whether you are a Chistian or not.

These questions reveal a lot. However, I want to focus on the point that there is no one with a complete and faultless understanding of God; you and I, and everyone else, is wrong about God to some extent, unless there is no God, in which case only the atheists are right. Pair this with my first blog post in the “Exploring 50 reasons to be an atheist” series, my “The Value of Meaning” post, and every point Rhett makes, and suddenly it becomes clear that certainty in anything is not a luxury allotted to human beings. 

Therefore, let us stop requiring Christians to assert that they are 100% certain in what they believe. Jesus, did not require 100% certainty of any of His disciples prior to entering a relationship with them. In fact, Jesus seemed less concerned with the certainty of his disciples and more concerned with their confidence. Furthermore, He was well aware that neither certainty nor confidence are a binary thing but each exists on a spectrum, hence His regular referral to “little faith” or mustard seed size faith; faith being synonymous with confidence, as it is the confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11:1).

It is not a sin nor is it wrong in any way to have little faith/confidence. So let us stop acting like it is. From personal experience, I’m not even sure “big” faith is something we are all meant to have. Lately I’ve gotten the feeling that the main reason God has not been obvious with me about His existence is because of the burden He has placed on my heart for all of the people who wrestle with the fact that they lack certainty. If I never had to wrestle with lacking solid evidence then I might not have been able to truly hear and understand where the atheists and agnostics are coming from. 

Much like Rhett, I have exchanged my attempts to be certain for my desire to have hope. However, unlike Rhett, in spite of all of the Holy Bible’s flaws, I still find that its narrative, brings a more appealing Hope than I have found anywhere else. Granted, my take on the Holy Bible is not widely agreed upon, as you will learn should you follow my blog. There are many understandings of Christianity that present a hope that I do not find appealing, some even, like some mentioned by Rhett, that I find appalling. So I cannot blame people for rejecting Christianity. Furthermore, I still have yet to address the 475 contradictions in the Bible.This blog is mutually my effort to seek a greater Hope than what I have, and an effort to offer the hope I have to anyone who needs it. So we will see how my stance changes as I take that journey. 

As you can imagine, researching 475 contradictions takes a lot of time and effort, and presently I can only give what little freetime I have toward conducting it. If you have found my blog to be valuable, please consider buying me more time to work on this by supporting me on Patreon (follow the link at the top of the page). If things start picking up I may even be able to start offering additional rewards to those who choose to support me. Regardless of if you can give or not, thank you for supporting me by reading, sharing, and providing pushback/feedback. 

The Earbiscuts Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYCgz-MiNE4

EarBiscuts on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3j9nu2qpJrUxEXp5qMudM7 

Reasons 1-7 people give for being an Atheist: The Imaginary God

Let’s begin with the most common reason people have for being an atheist along with a few related reasons (commonality as determined by a poll I made to the Atheists Facebook page. Participants voted for the reasons they had to become an atheist upon becoming an atheist. Any reasons they acquired after were to remain unchecked. Bear in mind that I try not to come off as a Christian in my posts to this page so as not to create needless barriers to conversation. 

This group is private for the safety of its members and any mention of individuals in this group or others like it will be kept confidential. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/185348921846461/permalink/892642764450403/).

Reason 1: “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a God.” (Polled 56 votes)

Reason 2: “The religion was inconsistent with reality.” (Polled 46 votes)

Reason 3: “Real Miracles Don’t Happen.” (Polled 12 votes)

Reason 4: “I couldn’t find a good reason to believe.” (Polled 11 votes)

Reason 5: “Animals Don’t talk.” (Polled 6 votes)

Reason 6: "Reality is not dependent on any god." (Polled 4 votes)

Reason 7: “Science has disproved God.” (Polled 2 votes)

So far as I am aware, there is indeed no scientific evidence that proves God exists. 

I am aware of many Christian apologists who point to certain scientific laws, or examples of logic, which, in their minds, point to God, and they very well might. However, we don’t know that for certain. Just because the thing these facts point to remains undiscovered, does not mean we should assume they point to God.

Other apologists point to historical claims as though they were evidence. However, there are a number of problems with this, but what it all boils down to is that you cannot prove the Bible is not historical fiction, like Forrest Gump. 

Considering the fact that historical fiction injects a fictional story into a highly historically accurate setting, you cannot assert that the presence of some historical facts prove the other claims are true as well.

Even if you were to find archaeological evidence that one of the miraculous events in scripture actually happened, you cannot assume that God is the true explanation for how it happened.

Then there are those who assert their personal experiences of God, Miracles, or other supernatural phenomenon as proof. 

On one hand, it is not my place to invalidate other people’s experiences. If someone claims to have experienced those things it is possible they have. I cannot blame them for believing what they experienced is as it appeared.

However, when the expectation is that I am too agree with them about the truth of their experiences, I need to consider the other possibilities. When it comes to other possibilities, by definition, even the most improbable natural explanation is more probable than a super natural one. So these things could be caused by anything ranging from a strange natural phenomenon to a brain tumor.

So, even though I cannot accept the supernatural explanation as the absolute truth, it is not intellectually compromising to subjectively hope that the supernatural explanation is true, so long as it remains a possibility and no other possibilities become confirmed (a hoped for explanation should never take precedence over a proved explanation).

Furthermore, a hoped for explanation should never keep you from seeking out the truth of the matter; giving equal consideration to each possibility and maintaining an open mind to more possibilities should they arise.

Additionally, to ignore the condition of the world and turn a blind eye to scientific discovery is to rob one’s self of the ability to live a life that can better humanity. So why hope for the supernatural?

“Hope”, regardless of its source, provides real and measurable benefits to those who have it. As detailed in this article from Psychology Today:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pressure-proof/201303/5-ways-hope-impacts-health-happiness

It is common for atheists to find their hope in both themselves and the goodness of humanity. This is a very valuable hope to have, and I would encourage anyone to have this hope if they can bring themselves to do it. However, not only are there many who have lost the ability to find hope in themselves or the goodness of humanity, but hope in oneself will pass with one’s dying body (or dying energy source given the possibility of transhumanism), and hope for the the goodness of humanity will pass with the life of the last human or other living thing. 

In the face of these inevitable realities, it would appear to me that both hope in one’s self and hope in the goodness of humanity are temporary and conditional. So given the possibility of a non-conditional hope, one that overcomes death, and one that does not require you to ignore the condition of the world and turn a blind eye to scientific discovery, why shouldn’t I have that hope, at least until something better comes along? 

One possible non-conditional hope I have come across is hope in a God. However, in order to be a source of hope in this case, this God would have to have the following attributes: 

1. A God that is not subject to entropy and thus must transcend a material form. Similar to the way a game developer transcends the binary that makes up the fabric of the virtual world they create.

2. A God with power over life, death, and the entropy of the universe.

3. A God with goodwill for humanity, whatever that would look like.

I have run these points by many atheists, and surprisingly a vast majority take no issue with the idea of hoping our reality is one wherein a benevolent God exists. Granted, and as could only be expected, there are a number of caveats tied to this exception.

1. That hope should never be presented as proof or evidence.

2. No one should ever be expected to share in that same hope.

3. So long as that hope is not keeping you from doing what you can here and now.

4. Only result to hope over evidence when the evidence itself provides no hope; when you are in a desperate situation that is out of your control; when you are facing impending death/doom.

5. The thing you hope for should be possible.

However, hope for God can meet all of these caveats.

First, that hope should never be presented as proof or evidence. I do not present my hope for God as proof or evidence. So check.

Second, no one should ever be expected to share in that same hope. I do not expect others to share in my hope. I may offer my hope, present my case, as I am here, to those who are interested or to those searching for hope, but they can choose to reject it without judgment from me.

Third, so long as that hope is not keeping you from doing what you can here and now. There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the notion of “letting God be the driver of your life”.

Letting God drive does not mean you do nothing. It means that you do anything you can without resolving to a means that brings about more suffering. 

For example, letting God drive the way you get money does not mean you sit around until you get money. It means that you do anything you can to get the money except anything that would require hurting someone else, even fractionally (I understand that there are some Old Testament laws in the Bible that demand penalties of suffering and death, I will address those in a later post). 

The only time I imagine God would ever make something happen by supernatural means is if it cannot be done by natural means or without hurting someone. An exception to this would be if God explicitly, and without a shadow of a doubt, told me to wait and do nothing, though I may still try to get a brain scan as soon as possible.

Furthermore, all of these same things apply to helping other people. Never just pray for someone. In addition to prayer, make sure you have done anything within your power to help them or to point them to someone more qualified to help them.

Fourth, only result to hope over evidence when the evidence itself provides no hope; when you are in a desperate situation that is out of your control; when you are facing impending doom/death. I have already addressed the possibility that hope for a benevolent God can stand in the face of life's inevitable end.

Fifth, the thing you hope for should be possible. This is where we must address the notion that science has disproved the existence of God. First, science cannot prove non-existence, very few people disagree with this. However, some people claim that, since humans have, or soon will have, holistic knowledge of how the universe works, and that understanding does not require God, God therefore does not exist.

The universe may not necessitate a God, but that does not mean one does not exist, though one could make the argument that it does render hope for a God to be pointless.  

Others claim that humanity has eyes on every means of communication, so if God did anything, we would detect it. Now I have addressed these notions on a previous blog post, and rather than go over the whole thing again, here is a link (https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-value-of-meaning.html). This post essentially explains how human beings are biologically unable to be certain that our senses, the only means by which we have to know anything about reality, are giving us a holistic knowledge of reality let alone correct knowledge. Essentially the post posits the idea of Solipsism. Thus, as long as God cannot be disproved, He remains a possibility.

In conclusion, it is valid to hope for God so long as the hope meets certain caveats. However, it is also valid to be atheistic should the existence of God provide no hope. In following posts we will be exploring ways God’s existence may or may not be something that provides hope.

Furthermore, since hope provides both physical and mental benefits, it is valuable in a real and measurable way to hope for God, again within certain caveats.

Finally, non-existence can not be proven nor are humans biologically capable of holistic knowledge of the universe. Thus God’s non-existence cannot be proven and His existence remains a possibility. 

With the possibility of God’s existence there also comes the possibility of the existence of miraculous events. Such a God could have admin privileges to our reality enabling it to bend and break the natural laws of the reality it made as it sees fit. However, considering the consistency of the natural laws, it would seem that this God, should there be one, does not take to bending and breaking them very often, thereby not undercutting the value of such laws. 

In addition, although there are certain scientific laws that suggest our reality should not exist the way it does unless some great intelligence was involved, we cannot assume that a great intelligence is the answer. Furthermore, compounding historically accurate details does not act as proof for historical claims.

It should also be noted that the argument from hope is different from Pascal’s wager in where Pascal considers the possibility of benefits from a belief in God, this considers the very real benefits of hoping for God’s existence.

Next Post: https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2020/08/exploring-50-reasons-to-be-atheist.html

Previous Post: https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2020/08/exploring-50-reasons-to-be-atheist_31.html