Brooks,
The difference that I pointed out to you in the last email is simply this:
those with differing opinions are not irrational by holding their position
if there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that they are irrational. You
do not have enough evidence to prove that a person holding a belief in
Christianity is irrational when it comes to their belief. I think that you
are just plain wrong for doing this.
Irrationality is defined as an incapability of reasoning. The reason it
can't be compartmentalized is that, such an idea, is in itself, not
logical. Someone with an irrational belief in just one area is not simply
irrational in that area. They have a global problem. Let's say that I
believe that Martians have implanted a receiver into my brain and are
beaming radio signals into my head in attempt to manipulate me (not as
uncommon a belief as you might think). Other than this one irrational idea,
I am a rational person. Of course, this belief colors my interaction with
the world, and so I do and say some things that aren't within the realm of
the ordinary person you meet. This is true, but then again, so does Howard
Stearn and he is considered rational.
I am guessing that you are not going to view me as a mentally healthy
individual, given the picture I just painted. My irrational belief is only
in one area. Doesn't this make me a rational person with just a
compartmentalized irrationality? No! As long as I cling to my belief that
Martians are sending signals to the receiver they hooked up to my brain, I
am not a rational person. My irrationality is not just compartmentalized.
Similarly the Christian's so-called compartmentalized irrationality
permeates their life. Perhaps you are familiar with the term Jesus freak.
If I insist to you that I am rational and my Martian story is true, you can
point out the fact that there is no receiver in my head with an X-ray as
evidence that I am wrong. The fact that every other person in the world
will accept this evidence as proof is sufficient to show that I am
irrational. You have no such proof against the Christian. Saying that you
do not have to prove a negative (God does not exist) does nothing to prove
that the Christian is irrational. The rest of the world is not going to
agree with you that I am acting in an irrational way because I can't prove
that my God exists. They can see that there is sufficient evidence to
suggest that God's existence is within the realm of rational thinking.
I do not believe that the atheist, Jew, Muslim or Mormon is irrational
because of their belief. I can't prove that they are mistaken in their
understanding of reality to the point that there can be no doubt in any
mind. I believe in something different than what they believe. I have come
to believe Christianity and it is true to me beyond a reasonable doubt, but
I am a fallible being and do not presume myself to be the judge of the
minds others on the issue of faith.
I may view others as mistaken, but not irrational, without sufficient
evidence to do so. I am not saying that you can't call me irrational
(however narrow you try to make the scope of it). I am saying that an
irrational person can't present anything acceptable in defense of what they
believe. That person is incapable of reasoning. I am saying that I view you
as rational and that you wrongfully view me as irrational. I don't want to
split hairs on this issue and make you upset with me for putting words in
your mouth. I am saying that two people can look at the same body of
information and come to opposing views without either of them being
irrational. I am saying that you do not agree with this in the case of
Christianity. You think that anyone choosing to believe in Christianity is
acting irrationally.
If what I am saying is accurate, but you don't agree that the Christian is
an irrational person, explain how their belief is compartmentalized, so
that it does not show up in everything they do. I think that you are going
to find that the Christian is irrational all over the place by this
analysis. It is not just a momentary lapse in rational thought that they
can look back on and say, "Oops, I had a little break from rational thought
there."
This thing is getting very long, but let me address a few other items. You
said that Christians tend to rely on faith more than reason. I would say
that Christians rely on faith, which has reason as a foundation. Nobody can
be a Christian based only on hard facts. The bottom line is that it can't
be proven scientifically. Love can't be proven scientifically either. You
can't analyze the chemical make-up of love and reproduce it in the lab. You
can't quantify it. But that doesn't stop people from accepting that it is
real.
I wrote this last time: about what I believe and simply restating your
honest understanding of
what you know to be true about Christianity, you are, by your actions,
invalidating my beliefs."
You asked how you were doing this (suggesting a possible weakness in my
faith as the answer). You have done it by insisting on stating that I think
that you deserve to go to Hell. I have said repeatedly that I do not think
that you deserve to go to Hell. I have said that I do not think that you
are evil. You have stated back that I believe that you are evil. You are
denying my right to hold my position by restating untruths. You seem to
think that since you honestly hold these things to be true, you can ignore
my statements to the contrary. The only thing that is important is that you
honestly believe them.
To probe a little deeper, I think that your understanding may be close, but
strange from my perspective. For instance, let's take the idea that I
believe you are evil. This suggests that I think of myself as holy and you
as vile. The fact is that I don't judge you. I believe that God views both
of us as equally imperfect, having both the capacity for good and evil.
Your choice to not believe in God does not make your more evil than me, nor
does it remove your ability to do good.
On the subject of you deserving Hell, I think I can get to what you are
trying to say. I don't think that you deserve Hell. That judgment is for
God. You seem to be saying that since I know that you understand about God
and have chosen not to believe in Him, and I believe that God will send
such people to Hell, then I have decided that you have earned Hell.
Christians believe that nobody is more or less deserving of Hell based on
their own merit. If you really meant to imply that my attitude toward you
is that of disdain, I disagree.
You wrote: No. Christians think EVERYONE is inherently evil and deserving
of Hell. The
distinction is this: You would like to convert me, but you believe that if
I
don't convert before I die, this means that I "choose" Hell and that I
deserve it.
Let me ask you this, what is bothering you in the distinction that you made
above? You really seem to be saying that you don't want this Christianity
thing and, because of your rejection, I harbor some ill will toward you. I
can't for the life of me think of any other reason for repeatedly bringing
this up. You think that my God is absurd. You think that you can go to
Hell, no more than I think you can get chocolate milk from a cow. It's all
a fairy tale to you, so what's the big deal here? Is my belief in God
really hurting you that much?
In closing, let me ask this question, have I been evangelizing you in our
discussion as you see it? I haven't tried to. God's desire for you, as I
see it, is for you to find the truth. I will not argue you into it. I am
perfectly willing to let you have your atheistic view. I certainly don't
think that I must keep writing to you until you accept God. I write to you
because I enjoy our discussion and I like the fact that you also are
examining life. If anything, I have tried to keep both of us from moving
our discussion in an evangelistic direction. We aren't going to agree
there.
I have only tried to get across to you that your perception of Christians
might not be totally accurate and that your interaction with Christians
seems unkind. I harbor no ill will toward you. I have not launched a
campaign against atheism. Even if I had tried to evangelize you, with your
knowledge of my beliefs, you should have only viewed it as misguided
concern for your well being.
Catch you later,
Matt