Right after I complained about the Christian over-reaction to the “war on Christmas,” the American Humanist Association went and upped their commitment. Sigh …
“Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake!” is the ad running on the side of buses all over Washington, DC now.
So, I’d like to take this opportunity to answer the question.
First of all, I believe in God because I look around the world and can’t possibly see how anyone could reach the conclusion that there is no God. The oft-stated notion that the universe just happened to come into being, and life just happened to evolve, requires a bit too much faith for me.
Look at the tremendous advantage mono-cellular organisms have over more-complex beings. I’ve never heard a good explanation for the addition of genetic information, much less the evolution of complex bodily systems.
Choose your analogy — blowing up a print shop and winding up with a dictionary, a tornado assembling a 747 in a junkyard, or whatever else. The idea of life evolving randomly simply doesn’t pass the sniff-test.
Second, I point to the astonishing continuity of the Bible. I’m not, here, going to delve into the various alleged contradictions in Scripture. That’s not necessary right now. The Bible is a remarkably-coherent text written over the course of dozens of centuries by all kinds of different people — shepherds, kings, lawyers, physicians, etc.. Yet, they tell a coherent story, and prophecy is fulfilled within its pages.
Third, and last for this post, I know God personally. For me to disbelieve Him would be like disbelieving the existence of my wife, my parents, or anyone else that I know. I don’t expect this point to be particularly persuasive to anyone who hasn’t had the same kind of experience, but there it is.
That brings me to the point of persuasion. Does anyone really think that a sign on the side of a bus is, all of a sudden, going to cause people to doubt the existence of God? Is it going to accomplish anything?
The more I read from the “new atheism” movement, the more I think that its main goal isn’t so much to convert people to atheism, its stated goal, as it is to annoy believers. The Christmas season is going to be a lot of fun this year … Christian groups are calling home-improvement store managers to demand that their cashiers say “Merry Christmas,” and atheists are plastering “Why believe in God?” on the side of buses.
All this, and it’s not even halfway through November. I’m sure it will only get more “fun.”
My younger son said this past Sunday that Christmas is his favorite holiday. I remember feeling the same way, when I was about his age. Thanksgiving has long since replaced Christmas as that favorite, and I think it has much to do with the fact that it’s the less-debated of the two. No one gets in your face about being thankful or to Whom. While it is sometimes reduced to mere “Turkey Day,” no one pushes too hard one way or the other.
So, anyway … there’s my answer to the question “Why believe in God?” in just a little over 500 words. Since I assume that they didn’t really want to know, I don’t expect much interest. But I’d certainly like to wish the American Humanists a merry Christmas, happy holiday, or whatever else. I do rather wish that they returned the sentiment.









November 12, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Stumbled on your blog and I liked your point of view.
I couldn’t agree more with the “annoying Christians” part.
Thanks for the perspective.
http://www.wildhorsehope.wordpress.com
November 12, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“The more I read from the “new atheism” movement, the more I think that its main goal isn’t so much to convert people to atheism, its stated goal, as it is to annoy believers.”
amen
November 12, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“I’ve never heard a good explanation for the addition of genetic information, much less the evolution of complex bodily systems.”
Look up “natural selection.”
That’s not atheism. That’s science.
Oh, and Merry Christmas. I have no problem celebrating what has become, at least in America, a very secular holiday. But I have no problem if you feel like keeping it religious.
November 12, 2008 at 10:16 pm
That’s not atheism. That’s science.
Au contraire…natural selection is not science or a theory. It’s wild speculation providing few answers to the questions Wickle posed. I can stump Darwinists with a few simple questions and never leave the constructs of mammalian biology.
And being that I now reside in medical school, I say that with a degree of having both taken the sciences, and a certainty that the dogma now attempting to sell itself as theory, has little to do with science and much to do with a mindset of rebellion.
Very nice Wickle…
November 12, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Actually, MorseCode, “natural selection” doesn’t explain the addition of genetic information.
It would explain why three-legged antelope would die out, since they’re too slow to escape from the lions. It doesn’t explain why single-cell organisms turned into antelope in the first place … especially since single-cell organisms are better-suited to survive than the complex ones.
Natural selection would result in losing inferior information, but not the creation of new stuff.
November 12, 2008 at 11:39 pm
my thought is the signs on the sides of public transportation is not so much about converting folks to atheism as it is a “made you look” ploy (or in this case “made you blog about it” ploy).
I love the picture of blowing up a print shop and ending up with a dictionary or a tornado putting together a 747 in the junkyard … excellent imagery.
November 12, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Thanks, OneMom. I wish that I could claim credit for those images, but I picked each of them up in other places.
You might be right … I might have played into their hands, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Especially given that I picked on the AFA a couple days ago, it seemed only fair.
I really wish that we could get through Christmas peacefully, rather than trying to annoy everyone else.
This reminds me of a “Foxtrot” comic I saw several years ago … Hmmm … I wonder if I can find it …
November 13, 2008 at 12:20 am
what was the theme of the foxtrot strip?
November 13, 2008 at 8:36 am
I find it interesting that so many Christians get so emotional over Christmas, a pagan holiday.
November 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[I find it interesting that so many Christians get so emotional over Christmas, a pagan holiday.]
No more interesting than I do to watch the godless squirm when they hear the name of Jesus. It’s like pouring salt on the slug…
November 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Although Christmas is celebrated at the same time as Yuletide and carried over some of its traditions with trees, wreaths, holly and such, it has become a holiday in its own right with its focus on the birth of Jesus Christ the Savior. (I can’t say the same for All Saints’ Day and Halloween. I have never seen or heard a celebration of the Saints at this time of year. Although Halloween’s name has changed, it still has the same spirit and focus of the pagan holiday.) Christmas carols sing of Christ’s birth, nativity scenes are commonly sold in our stores and placed in homes or on lawns, Christmas cards can have very religious messages, and even Charlie Brown’s friend Linus shares with us all what the true meaning of Christmas is.
I do realize that some people celebrate this holiday without a thought of Jesus’ birthday, but it does not have to be this way. Our family celebrates Christmas with Christ at the center. We will attend our church’s Christmas musical and Christmas Eve candlelight worship service, read the Christmas story from the Scriptures as we add a new piece to our nativity each night, enjoy carols about the birth of Jesus, send cards containing a Christ-honoring message to our friends and family, and teach our children the blessedness of giving and look for opportunities in our community to do so. We do not celebrate a pagan’s holiday, we celebrate the birth of Christ.
I know that Scriptures do not say that Jesus was born on December 25, but they do say that Zacharias (John the Baptist’s father) was of the division of Abijah and was serving in the temple when the angel visited him. This time of service would have been at a very specific time according to the schedule of service for priests. When he completed this service, Elizabeth became pregnant and she was six months further along than Mary. My understanding is that because of the schedule of priests’ service and Zacharias’ division, this timeline would put the birth of Jesus around the time of year that we celebrate it. I also have read that around the week of Christmas is the time that shepherds spend their nights out with their flocks because it is the time of year that the ewes are birthing and may need the assistance of the shepherd. (I have not researched that claim, but think it is something to look into.)
Anyway, Christmas and Yuletide can be celebrated without a look to each other, one does not depend on the other, and Christmas is not the pagan holiday.
November 13, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Thanks, Karen,
I was trying to figure out whether I wanted to say something like that (though probably less-eloquently) or just let the comment go. Well done, though.
OneMom,
Several years ago, Jason (the young, nerdy kid) was making Christmas cards. One of them showed Santa Claus saying something like, “Merry Christmas, anyway.” He handed it to his father, saying it was for friends who don’t celebrate Christmas. His father, on looking at it, said, “You mean, soon to be ex-friends.”
November 17, 2008 at 12:03 am
[...] One True Believer has an interesting discussion going on in answer to the question “Why Believe in God?” [...]
November 17, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Simple post. Sure, it might not convince an atheist (which wasn’t really your point anyway, was it?), but it gives a response as to why it would be reasonable to believe in God. In the end, it is a matter of faith, but not a matter of blind faith.
November 20, 2008 at 3:18 am
[...] An answer to “Why believe in God?” @ A True Believer’s Blog.Wickle talks about the “new atheism” movement, and the [...]