Points on Letter to a Christian Girlfriend

Hi readers,

Hopefully, you have read the previous post, where someone replied to my arguments. I guess I am humbled by some of his points which I will clarify for sure. Most of it is due to my brief explanations, so it does cause some confusion, and I apologise for that. Thanks to the blogger (how should I address you? Local Atheist?) who pointed the confusing parts, despite our differing worldviews.

I respect LocalAtheist because what he could have said was "Look at this moron ( or something like that)-- he misrepresented Taosim!". But in his graciousness, he pointed out a few of my errors quire amicably in his post.

1) Puropse of my post (Reply from a Christian Observer)
I made a mistake of sounding too harsh in the post, that readers treated it as a counter. Although majority of the post counters the writer of "Letters to a Christian Girlfriend", I guess I wrote it more aggressive than I should. My purpose was to clarify some of the points he made that I felt were unfair for two reasons-- intellectual honesty, and to present Christianity as something reasonable to believe in.

2)Where do non-believers go?
I think I probably wrote this too poorly, resulting in the major misunderstanding by "Local Atheist" (the blogger). I didn't say that Christians were sinning by marrying non-believers. In fact, it is not a sin at all. That said, it is hard for Christians in such a relationship because of differing world views.

Everyone is doomed to hell (eternal separation from God) becuase they are sinners. However, in accepting Jesus to cleanse our sins, believers join God in heaven.

So in a way (bearing in mind I'm simplifying a lot), it's fair in the sense that God honours our choice whether we want to spend time with him eternally (in heaven) or not at all (in hell).

3) Science and the universe

This one, was a major mistake by me. I failed to clarify certain issues. I wrote "Atheism is not as pro-science as you think". What I mean to write was "Atheism is not ALWAYS as pro-science as you think". And I failed to add that in a sense I agree with Stephen Jay Gould, that science is equally compatible with atheism as with religious belief.

It's hard to understand the second part too. God is by definitation in and out of the universe at the same time. Persoanlly, I am troubled by it, because it does sound like a cop-out. And I was not using this explanation as evidence of God, but rather to clarify why in Christianty God has no beginning (and no end).

PS: I know the writer of Letters to a Christian Girlfriend is agnostic.

4) The what if hypothesis

I think the bigger issue I failed to highlight is that how do we know ANYTHING is true if everything is environmental (or genetic)? I think if we push this hypothesis to the fullest, it seems to argue against the concept of ultimate reality. In other words, if we cannot know reality as it is, then how can I be sure that something exists as real at all?

It's quite hard to grapse, I concede. I myself took quite some time to get my head around it.

5) Bible as moral compass

I admit this part of my response sounds the weakest, but bear with me, because I am still reading on it.

I guess when I write "in context", we must take the "text" in the time it was written in. You say if the Bible inerrantly true, it should be unmistakeable throughout time. However, you realise that societies change over time, and hence interpretations vary. And I agree. But some interpretations are just wrong.

Let's take the case of King David and the death of his unborn child in 2 Samuel 12. After finding out his baby died, he said that "I will go to him, but he will not return to me". Does that mean the Bible (from this passage) says that all fetuses who die before birth will go to heaven? Maybe, but you have to remember that this part of the Bible is written as a narrative (of what David said), rather than what God told David.

Admittedly, it's hard to get the context of the Bible in normal reading at times. Hence Christians are encouraged to attend sermons/Bible study/read various translations of the Bible. That said, reading the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek and learning the historical context of the times is the best way to go about it, but not everybody has that gift.

6) Evidence

I will handle this at the last part.

7) Religion/Philosophy/Science as a tool for harm.

I largely agree you on this issue. If you were next to me, I would hi-five you :)

Science in its purest sense, is just a tool with no bearing of right and wrong. That said, scientific naturalism as a philosophy can lead to people doing good or bad things.

8) Professors

I did not say that majority of academics believe in a Christian God. All I wanted to point out was that there were academics who were Christian, and it's not the odd one or two.

I heard that 40% of scientists believe in a "personal God who answers prayers" (i.e. a theistic belief), but this survey was done in the United States only (I think). (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are lying). I hear from cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller that for science academics, majority do not believe in God because we are simply trained to be skeptics. So scientists are less likely to believe in anything. I don't know about other academics, though.

9) Funeral rites

Again, I apologise for misleading people. Bowing is a form of respect for parents, I agree. But in some Chinese religions, it also involves asking the deceased parents for protection. Isn't it a form of worshipping too?

And one more thing, about the contradiction, it is not a sin, if it is simply respect. The issue is up to an individual. If his conscience is weak, then he better not do it. (i.e. if he feels that by bowing to his parents, he feels guilty, it is better he does not do it). You may oversimplify the funeral rites (eg: Josssticks to sandalwood, bowing as respect), but some of us do not. Admittedly, I was never in such a position (I was an atheist when my grandparents passed away), so I can't tell you what I would have done (or how I would have felt).

(For reference see 1 Corinthians 8)

10) The problem of evil

I admit that these is a problem I struggle with in Christianity. Like why does God let bad things happen? In letting bad things happen (eg: He lets Satan destroy Job's home, wealth and health in Job 1 -2), isn't He a direct cause of them?

Let me be clear: If you quiz me on stuff like what is the theological reason everyone except a boy died on a Libyan airplane crash on May 12, 2010, or why God let a tsunami happen, I will answer you honestly-- I don't know.

There could be a number of reasons-- a consequnce of natural law/free will, judgement (although for someone to say so conclusively is insensitive; see Luke 13:1-5), or a warning. The point is I don't know.

The main point I was highlighting was the fact that we can recognise something as evil, right or wrong, hints towards a God. Local Atheist suggest simulations (I'm not too sure what he means), but to do so seems to give free will without consequence.

You point out the benefits of a moral system, in primitive animals, and I applaud that. But I just want to point out that it does not mean that it being beneficial disproves God (nor does it prove God).

6) Evidence

As promised, the evidence for belief. While there are many hints towards God existance, such as beauty, moral systems, etc, I just want to get straight down to it and talk about Jesus, which is the strongest case of Christianity.

Mainstream historians (as far as I know), accept that there was a man called Jesus. He claimed to be God, did miraclous things (Roman and Jewish historians who did not like him said he did black magic), and died on the cross. They wrote that more than 500 eyewitnesses saw him alive three days after his execution.

However, the implications of this (ie: whether He was God or not) differ among historical scholars. I will cover this in a later post.

But I would say if you can prove that a) Jesus didn't exist, b) Jesus didn't die or c) Jesus stayed dead, you would disprove Christianity. Again, I will cover this in a later post.

Conclusion

I'm sorry if my points are brief.

To my friend LocalAtheist, I don't know if you will write a response to this, but if you do counter this, I probably won't write a reply, because I want to move on. I will either focus on my journey towards Christianity or why we pray.

For our next post, why don't we list some books that will be helpful for our readers?

And have a good week ahead!

PS: Can I link your blog to mine?