This is an oft-asked question to people like myself that have rejected faith. Many skeptics like to place you within their agnostic or atheist “camp” like a church member does with their new convert.  But some will insist and press on you until you answer this question for them, I say “not so fast”.

Getting Somewhat Biographical for a Reason

Before I tell you my position…(it is a little different answer than what you might expect) I need to explain a few things. I am very appreciative of my alma mater Tennessee Temple University (TTU) in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I graduated in 1990 with a Bachelor of Science with a major in Pastoral Studies. Yes, they taught me dogma and many other things that I later discovered were simply not true. But anyway, what I am grateful for is that they were consistent in their aim to provide a quality education. They taught us that a good education teaches you how to think for yourself.  I’m sure that they wouldn’t approve of what I have done or become and frankly, I don’t care.  They can relax, I won’t be asking for a refund J.

Unless you live in a cave, you know that there are hundreds of Christian denominations out there. My alma mater didn’t have a denominational tag, but most students were from Baptist backgrounds. Schools similar to TTU are Liberty University and Bob Jones University. What the fortunate lifelong atheist and agnostic doesn’t understand is how a town can get so many churches. People understand that there are many differences, but how did it get to be that way?

LESSONS LEARNED FROM A CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

An introduction to the box

It was explained to me like this, the term that was used to describe it is called worldviews. Worldviews are what you might expect; ways in which people look at the world based upon their belief systems. Christians have their own worldviews based on their interpretation of the bible and faith. There are countless possibilities in biblical interpretation. Christians differ on baptism; eschatology;  worship styles; gifts of the spirit, etc…you get the picture.  Just like a business must find its place in a given market, so must a church if it is to survive. Yes, churches do fail just like businesses do.

Most People Interpret by Worldviews

Putting your brain in a box

Imagine that a worldview is really just a “pair of glasses” that a person wears to see the world through. A Christian often views his world in say a Calvinistic, Charismatic,  Amillenial, etc.  “pair of glasses”. Change the lenses and the Baptist suddenly becomes a Presbyterian. Often they see things as black or white. They may notice the differing shades of gray but be too dogmatic to accept what they just saw.  Christians often accept whatever their “glasses” worldview tells them and simply fall asleep safely in their worldview. Logic and reason is rejected. Not simply because of dogma, their dogma has programmed what they are allowed to view because it is safe. New or threatening viewpoints are quickly rejected because of a prejudiced dogma.

Christians aren’t the only people that reach their conclusions this way. Non-theists can also fall into this subjective mind trap of worldviews. It should be obvious that thinking through a worldview /paradigm presupposition has a tendency to render a subjective verdict. Basically, a person turns in faith like manner to their worldview, and asks this worldview to interpret the data. The worldview becomes the master, and the holder its slave. Most people will never change their worldview. When a person’s worldview repeatedly fails to answer individual, societal, and global problems a person gradually looses faith in that worldview.  At this point, viewpoints similar to that which Ex-minister espouses are ready to be explored by people with a receptive mindset.

INSIDE A CHRISTIAN CLASSROOM

Keeping you in a box

I considered going to Liberty University to obtain a Master’s degree. The reason I didn’t was that I just had too many questions that I wanted to answer for myself. In Christian schools they tell you what to think, and how to think to reach the same conclusions that they have. Pity the bible student that asks the wrong question at the wrong place or time. Fundamentalist professors will toy with the brave student that asks the wrong type of questions. They do this in front of their peers to embarrass and discourage other similar types of questioning. If that student embarrasses the professor that student is subject to a visit to the dean’s office and can be sent home if they are not compliant. You can see how that they maintain control. I wasn’t comfortable having someone else do my thinking for me. I decided that once I received my Bachelor’s degree, that to further my education I would read and study on my own and think for myself. It took me nine years after graduating from TTU to get out of the religious box.

Lessons learned from a salesman

Personally, sermon preparation is not easy work if your goal is to educate and inspire people for a noble purpose.  In the end, all that matters is that a persuasive message was delivered to the decision maker inside of man.  If not, then the question that needs to be asked is why!  Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time.  I still hold this same mentality as a skeptic trying reach the Theist’s decision maker.  The business organization maxim, “nothing happens until something is sold” is true. For something to be sold, you have to reach the decision maker.  Salesmen make or break organizations; good ones find a way to remove obstacles that keep them away from the decision maker.

Conquering the ineffective Atheist strategy

Ex-minister wants to be effective in reaching those receptive to being exposed to a non-theistic worldview. Yes, we have worldviews but Ex-minister’s doesn’t include trying to win someone over with an argument that you cannot win with.  Intellectually, there are many very smart atheists. Atheists are the last people I would want to have an intellectual fight with. But someone needs to show me who (Atheist) has proven that God does not exist? When I say prove, I am not accepting the verdict of winning an intellectual debate versus the Christian. 

Logic and reason drive you in the direction of probabilities.  But a probability is not a fact.  What I object to is the taking of a faith like leap by using probabilities as if they were a proven fact!  I see the Atheist trying to sell this viewpoint to the Christian, and they aren’t buying it!  To me, logic and reason rule and the Christian is correct in rejecting a flawed argument.  Atheists loose their intellectual firepower by claiming more than they can deliver.  Simply stated, the Atheist needs a new and effective strategy to win new converts.

Now, about that strategy!

I have probably made a few Atheists out there angry by now.  Atheist anger is part of the reason that they are as smart as they are. But this negative anger is what I feel is their greatest weakness. Christian tactics can piss off the most passive skeptic. Christians in their desperation to defend their viewpoint can really be annoying.  Anger may make you fight stronger and longer, but this isn’t a battle to be won by attrition.

Viewing our motives, do we want to win an intellectual debate? Do you want to embarrass somebody?  Christian’s tactics provoke these thoughts within me, but acting with this motivation doesn’t produce what I want to have happen. I feel that Christianity causes many problems and creates discord in relationships, families, workplaces and society. Christians are blind to this fact, those who have left the faith understand this and are often motivated because of this to oppose the faith message.

The atheist is certain that there is no god.  The Christian is certain that there is. Both views are an exercise of faith.  Neither viewpoint can prove that the other respective position is wrong. You simply cannot prove that god does or does not exist.

Imagine you’re in a court of law, when it is time for the Christian god to take the stand. What is going to appear? The God whom no man has seen nor can be seen? The Atheist cannot bring in this invisible God either, in order to cross-examine him and prove that he is a fraud.

The Christian has the easier task to prove that there is a god. You would think with all of god’s superlatives from the bible that some Christian would have had proof by now. The Atheist dilemma is similar to defending yourself against the charge “When did you last beat your wife?” You may have done nothing wrong, but can you prove it?

Now, I have tried to use my terms carefully. What can be proven is that the bible is morally perverted, internally inconsistent, historically incorrect, and scientifically wrong. In light of all of this, it is correct to say that the bible is a fraud. Since the bible states in John 1:1 the “Word was God”, we can safely say that the god of the bible does not exist as it claims.

MY ANSWER TO THE ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC QUESTION

I will gladly accept without apology the position of a religious/biblical atheist. Atheists have satisfactorily proven that this god of the bible has not and does not exist!  But please, do not call me an atheist!  Why, might you ask? I said I was a religious/biblical atheist, not an atheist. An atheist has not been able to prove that god doesn’t exist!  I agree with the Agnostic that it is highly improbable that a personal god exists. I really do not know if there is a god out there somewhere or not. If there is one, they have failed to leave us any instruction manuals to guide us.

If you carefully read the last paragraph you would have noticed that I did not answer the question properly! I gave an answer of: 1) A Religious/Biblical Atheist 2) An Agnostic.  When a skeptic has to give more than one answer to a question like this then you know that there isn’t an obvious, definite term that describes the position that I hold. I don’t feel that I am alone in my observations.

Hegel’s Dialectic in effect?

I would think that almost all Atheist and Agnostics would agree in having no confidence in any religious scriptures? If we are in agreement with this point, then all we have to do is admit our clumsiness in the matter of semantics and more clearly define what it is that we actually believe.  Currently, what I see happening in our skeptic movement is similar to what has happened to the US “two” political party system. That is, much energy and passion with little effectiveness. In reality it appears to be Hegel’s dialectic in place to produce stagnation.

Most and maybe all skeptics have proven their courage by rejecting the faith worldview. So when someone prods them to “get off the fence” and align themselves as an atheist they perpetuate unnecessary toiling. Again, I feel most all skeptics reject a faith worldview. But, when all you have to choose from as a position tag is the atheist or agnostic label then the problem lies in semantics. This can be corrected, and this is what we need to focus upon. 

What I propose to move forward with

This is what I propose. When I claim to be a religious atheist, then I share the same position as both an atheist and agnostic because I have rejected faith. The only question that remains to be answered is the possibility of God existing. This distinction is the very core of our struggles. I feel the atheist takes their position honestly because they don’t want anyone to confuse them as ascribing to religion or faith. I feel the agnostic takes their position honestly because they also reject religion and faith but they don’t want to claim as the atheist does a rejection of the possibility of a god.

The 2 New Positions defined:

Religious Atheist and Hardcore Atheist

The prevalence of the religious, faith meme forces skeptics to use a definition that comes from a denial. We need to accept this as a fact and just move ahead. I feel that the following two definitions will satisfactorily house all of the skeptical movement more clearly than the two terms we currently use, namely atheist and agnostic.

1)     Religious atheist  * rejects religion and faith but doesn’t address the possibility of a God question for whatever reason. In not addressing the God question this allows all Agnostics to unite with Atheist that are trying to avoid any association with a faith worldview. Deists could also identify with this group. Current atheist that are certain that there is no way a deity can exist need a more fitting label to define themselves with.

2)   Hardcore atheist * rejects religion and faith and is certain that it is an impossibility that a deity actually exists.    

By defining positions this way, we have removed some gray areas. Namely, the currently uncomfortable atheist who openly wants to deny faith, but wants to agree with the agnostic on the uncertainty of the possibility of a god has a home. This, what would be former atheist, has now made it clear: 1) no faith 2) agnostic on the possibility of a deity existing until proven differently.

The agnostic gray area has been removed because they have made a clear and positive statement against faith, but are allowed the freedom to be neutral on the possibility of God question until proven differently.  For example: Webster’s New World Compact School and Office Dictionary (1982) defines agnostic this way, “ one holding that it is impossible to know whether God exists”. While The Random House Dictionary of the English Language – College Edition (1968) defines it this way, “1. a person who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.”

Neutralizing the Anthony Flew “controversy”

Some will define agnostic by saying it is impossible to know (100% certainty), while others choose a lesser degree of certainty by doubting the possibility of ultimate knowledge. It is a semantic nightmare to try to determine when a speaker mentions or holds to agnosticism because you don’t know and often cannot ask which definition of agnosticism that they are referring to. If you feel that I am belaboring a point here, consider the stir about Anthony Flew being tossed about. He clearly stated his disdain for religion, in his May 11, 2006 speech at Biola. (See NY Times 11/04/2007 article by Mark Oppenheimer).  At the Biola ceremony, Flew mocked the revealed religion of his audience and flaunted his allegiance to deism: “The deist god, unlike the god of the Jewish, Christian or, for heaven’s sake, the Islamic revelation, is neither interested in nor concerned about either human beliefs or human behaviour,” he told the small crowd.

I haven’t the time or the inclination to delve into this issue. To me, this just magnifies the need to clarify skeptic terms. If we did this, the Christian then would be an idiot to claim Anthony Flew, while Mr. Flew has his rightful place as a Religious Atheist. Oppenheimer’s article indicates that he probably wasn’t a Hardcore Atheist anyway. People like myself don’t know whom to believe about Flew’s “change”, and it wouldn’t matter because the argument was neutralized by correctly redefining our terms.

Eliminating the Christian’s “loophole”

By accepting these new atheistic definitions, the Christian has a clearly defined new enemy that isn’t divided. Both of these positions clearly reject faith and religion. The Christian that goes into a debate knows that they must defend their scriptures. The unanswerable question of a deity existing isn’t addressed when debating.  We have also eliminated a Theist’s  “loophole” when debating. When a Theist knows that you cannot prove or disprove God, they know going into a debate that they can neutralize the damage an Atheist caused because the Atheist didn’t prove that God doesn’t exist. Skeptics then can pound away at the scriptures while they have the religious audiences ear when in debate. The weak point of religions is their revelations (scriptures). When these religious faithful loose confidence in their scriptures then skeptics will gain their ear as a receptive audience. The scriptures are the skeptic’s enemy. The scriptures tell people how they should live. Destroy the scriptures and at worse, these people become Deists, Benjamin Franklin being an example.

I don’t think that there are that many hardcore atheists around if we define our terms this way. The ambiguity of positions has been removed. If I am correct in my thinking, I feel we have unified at least 80% of skeptics under this Religious Atheists position.

WHY I AM NOT A HARD CORE ATHEIST

 Simply put, the “hardcore atheist” hasn’t proven that “god” doesn’t exist. I don’t think that it is possible to prove this anyway, so why divide skeptics and weaken their clout? I feel like the skeptic that pointed out that the emperor has no clothes had felt, “Am I the only one that sees this”?  As I continue to age, I have learned that the more that you learn you find out that there is so much more to learn. I’ve learned that carrying someone else’s flag is contrary to being a seeker of truth because it hinders the freedom of observation skills of the individual. You can claim that the Religious Atheist is “setting on the fence”, but they have freedom being outside of the box. I see the Hardcore Atheist being in a box, this is why some of them have such a problem with Anthony Flew “change” (if it is a reality). I don’t have a problem with the “change”, even if it is true. Why, because people that oppose faith and religion need to be able to vacillate between positions and it not be an issue. I myself think that the Hardcore Atheist is probably correct in this new definition, but I refuse to “sign up” because I distinguish between probability and certainty.

Ex-minister’s “Disclaimer”

Thinking out loud

 I’m not an anarchist, but I do feel that this will stir many hardcore atheists. From my viewpoint, the combined intellectual firepower of both the Atheist and Agnostic position ought to make today’s Christians tomorrow’s dinosaurs. As I have said, it is improbable that a personal god exists. But, I do have an itch that needs to be scratched deep within my curiosity. I have questions about the force behind evolution? I do not claim to be a proponent of evolution, but I believe in the process. Who can deny that caterpillars become butterflies? I have questions about origins. I’m not satisfied with the answer of the creationist, nor the evolutionist. What appears to be synchronicity at work in our lives fascinates me!  What is the significance of small world incidents, déjà vu moments? Why is it that in years past when I was financially busted that when I wanted to find a difficult book, I found it in a thrift store? I know that some intellectual superior to myself could probably give me some answers (this is stated tongue in cheek, but not sarcastically).  I am open to enlightenment on what I have written in this paragraph. I am thinking out loud in these statements and probably won’t defend them for a variety of reasons. As with most everything I write, I try to make people think. I am not aware of anyone else that has expressed similar viewpoints. So here is my case!  Memes when acted upon can actually change the world. My hope is that this one does, and in a positive way!

Brian Worley    Ex-minister.org    November 2007   All rights are reserved by the author.