I Hate “Blind Faith”

I am so frustrated with atheists who claim Christians “blindly” follow the “invented” instructions of their “invisible friend in the sky” without their own “moral consciousness.”

First of all, I have studied my religion for many years, and explored others, to validate that I am correct in what I believe. My faith was a choice; I was not indoctrinated or brainwashed.

Second of all, where does “moral consciousness” come from? People didn’t just invent morality, otherwise anything would be permissible. There is a reason murder and rape are always cringe-worthy. Morality comes from the personal Supreme Engineer, whether you want to call Him Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, whatever. There is a creative, divine design behind this ordered chaos. I have thought deeply about this.

(“Personal” in reference to God means He has a personality and that He is a knowable individual, not some “cosmic force.” While it can mean that He cares and wants a relationship with each individual He created, in context it does not mean this. It took me a long time to comprehend that, what with my Christian upbringing telling me, “Jesus is a personal God and wants a relationship with you.” I don’t mind understanding God as a cosmic force, however, since He is GOD and can be whoever, whatever, whenever. I believe He can be both personal and impersonal, depending on the context of manifestation.)

I have no problem with studying science as God’s method of creation and maintenance. I read a comment online in response to someone with a similar viewpoint, asking, “Why do you still call [the unknown before the “Big Bang”] God, if you aren’t really a Christian?” The writer didn’t imply that he wasn’t a Christian (only that a 2,000 year old book wasn’t the only source of knowledge about our Creator), but that aside—

Oh, I don’t know, because GOD isn’t confined by religious definitions? Because God is the term ascribed to the Supreme Being, regardless of dogma?

Excuse my biting tone.

Atheists are so concerned with pointing out believers’ ignorance that they forget to hide their own.

I’m not saying “blind faith” isn’t a thing. There are plenty of Christians I’ve known that never question or try to understand anything beyond the words ancient Hebrews put to paper, and they believe to do so is blasphemous. These believers, who see science as a threat and explain it away by claiming it is another “belief system” that exists on theory alone, are destroying our credibility. They are the reason we are seen as uneducated, unable to spell properly, and only capable of circular reasoning by quoting Scripture and nothing else. I do not understand why Christians think Scripture alone will sway the opinions of nonbelievers who see the Bible as a long book of fiction anyway.

I was up late last night looking for videos that explain how science and religion coexist. I will link a few below. Mind you, some are half an hour in length, but there are many good points if you have the time to watch. (If you are a Christian or other believer with an open mind, I recommend avoiding the videos’ comments sections – most of them are angry atheists who don’t want to entertain the idea that God is behind science, and they are there simply to troll and spew their misconceptions of Christianity.)

A five-minute video explaining how the beginning of the universe is evidence of God:


A five-minute video that entertains God but focuses on the science:


A half-hour program exploring different areas of science that support God:


Another half-hour program on how the universe, specifically our Solar System, exists the way it does for Earth’s benefit:

One comment from this last video I do want to address briefly is, “Why is fine-tuning called for, in any case? An all-powerful “deity” would be able to create life regardless of conditions, wouldn’t it? (In fact life’s existence, despite conditions that were absolutely inimical to it, would be some pretty powerful evidence for a Creator!) If you say fine-tuning is required, then you’re saying this “god” is bound by the physical laws of the universe–doesn’t sound very omnipotent to me!”

Well, God is the physical laws of the universe – He created them. He is not bound by them so much as they are bound by Him. Now, why didn’t He just create Earth in a perfect utopia without the need for buffers from asteroids, among other things? The video does not address this, but we know it is because of evil. Whether it is evil within Him or an external adversary, this inhibits Creative energy to a degree. God invented laws so He may follow them and “evil” cannot interfere. Even “evil” is bound by physics.

In another blogger’s words (Biblically-based):


God bless with mother earth’s bliss.


13 thoughts on “I Hate “Blind Faith”

  1. atheists wouldn’t accuse anyone of following commands of non existent things.

    second, no one chooses what to believe; people always believe what they’re inclined to think is the case.

    third, all things ARE permissable. that comes with free will. morality is not an object in the world. it is a grade society gives to non normative behavior.

    here is a fact. suppose two identical universes exist. one requires a god and the other does not. if it turns out that other than mere say-so, there’s no way to make a distinction between the two, then it is impossible for us two know which is the sort we live in. in fact, all god-talk then IS say-so. coupled with the fact that if god exists and god transcends, nothing can be known about god and the question of god’s existence is moot even if we knew somehow that there was a god.

    this implies by the way, that nothing about the universe makes a case for the existence of god. this means that things like morality and whatever else one would offer, are things which cannot be asserted as dependent on god. instead, it is these things which are not dubious, because they’re actual, that are being used to justify belief in what is actually dubious, namely god.

    the painful string, but not the worst, is the necessary conclusion that any and all god-talk isn’t about god. in god-talk, in belief, there is no difference between saying “i believe in god” and “i believe in my beliefs about god” … because it is incoherent to say and literally mean that you believe something you don’t even know.


    1. 1) I have been told such by atheists, 2) We choose what to believe based on what we’re inclined to think is the case, which I did once I educated myself, 3) just because things are “doable” (free will) does not mean they are “permissible.”

      Moving on, I see evidence in the universe for creative design. Some, and I’m assuming you are among them, don’t. Our perspectives differ, that does not make either of us “right” or “wrong.” As you said, there is no direct evidence either way. Hence, why I did not remove your comment. I am open to hearing opposing views if they are well-presented, which aside from your opening, you have done.


      1. 1) and note you’ve been told by a christian too.
        2) you did not choose because you required reasons to believe and on those reasons, it seemed to be the case; this is not a choice, one is pursuaded to truth, one does not choose it.
        3) just because all things are doable does not mean folks will do everything … we do what is acceptable and permissibility is entirely determined by society.

        when you say you see evidence, you are saying only that you have reason to think there may be some “big other” … but that is exactly an impression, from which you abductively infer deity.

        my opening? my opening is as a christian fed up with other brother and sisters taking a massive crap on atheists. they (you) do that by not hearing them on their terms and it shows itself when you create words for them to say.

        in fifteen years of apologetics, interacting with folks with all sorts of ideas every day, no one cares what christians believe, and ask folks care about is what people do. much of what christians do, and i am a part of that same community, is deplorable.


      2. If you believe anything is permissable without God, this obviously isn’t true if there isn’t a God; since this line of thinking relies on the fact people don’t run around doing whatever they want.

        If there is a God, just as obviously, everything is indeed permissible. We are free to do as we will, and history bears this out. If you read scripture, even with God, all things are permissible.

        The reason folks don’t run amok has nothing to do with the existence of God. It hinges on a truism of fact and experience that scripture points out: not all things are prudent. How much does it take to figure things out, to be prudential?


      3. Atheists *have* told me I follow commands from a non existent entity, to point out my “ignorance.” So you’re saying God is a non-existent entity? But you say you’re a Christian? Either you aren’t a Christian, or there is a communication error here.

        “…fed up with other brother and sisters taking a massive crap on atheists. they (you) do that by not hearing them on their terms and it shows itself when you create words for them to say.”

        This post was actually in response to what an atheist said to me, albeit a few years ago. (This has been sitting in my docs for awhile; I just added the videos at the end before posting it). There were no words I that “created” for him to say. I have had a few (maybe 10% of all atheists I’ve met) actually have a conversation with me that didn’t end in an ad hominem attack of my intelligence. Ninety percent of them do. Reading Youtube comments alone is enough to see how the majority of atheists view us “stupid” Christians. I don’t go into conversations looking to “take a crap” on someone; I defend myself when they do so to me.


      4. wait! you, posting here about atheists, is you under attack?!

        it’s telling that you give precise stats. 😉

        here’s a fact: when it comes to taking reasonably about their faith, christians do show themselves to be stupid. i say this as an apologist!

        but again, no one cares about your christian beliefs! people care about behaviors. those come from beliefs. your defense of the faith then is not in words, but by your words here, you have made enemies of atheists.


      5. to QED the point about stupidity:

        “god IS the physical laws … he created THEM”!

        now, i doubt you are actually stupid, but all any of us can go on are your words … and such statements like this one abound in christian rhetoric.

        christian-ese is full of unintelligible aphorisms. what goes for christian thought and apologetics these days is exactly christian-ese rather than theology and philosophical reflection. in fact, we get folks like joyce meyer saying reasoning is why people are leaving the faith!


    2. “If there is a God, just as obviously, everything is indeed permissible. We are free to do as we will, and history bears this out. If you read scripture, even with God, all things are permissible.”

      Again, doable doesn’t mean permissible. If all things are permissible, why does scripture even define sin, and make it so damning?

      I have a very hard time understanding morality without God because such prudence on a global scale seems very likely internalized. If not from God, then from an “Oversoul” as they say in Transcendentalism.


      1. i never said doable equals permissable. i’m pointing out that you conflate doable with permissable. that is, that if there is no god all things are permissable … as in, god is the thing making things doable or not.

        in all instances, WE are the only beings saying what is our isn’t permissable. of course you can claim some holy book or other was given by the gods, but while the likelihood of someone eventually claiming that is near certain, completely uncertain is this is so, given the very frequency of the claim and the infinite variety of these sorts of texts.

        and while we can have a productive conversation about ethics and morality without using even the ideas of “sin”, one cannot talk about sin at all without including the very content of these conversations; principles of harm, reciprocity, empathy, equality, etc..

        of course morality is internalized! again, morality is a word applied to behaviors. that’s it. and because we are human — not differing wildly at all in behavior, needs, problem, and thinking — morality is a discussion of natural sentiment (ie non cognitive inclination) and reasoning.

        do you understand the main point though?

        that is, all things in the universe are not things we can doubt. they simply exist. FROM there things, deity is inferred. and SINCE we cannot distinguish between a reality with a god and one without, and because a transcendent god is unknowable (see the entire apophatic tradition) and an imminent god is ordinary and indistinguishable from nature, nothing about reality can be accused of being contingent to our dependent on deity. quite the opposite, “god” (our idea that deity exist) is.

        oversouls?! no. just being human, mate.


      2. put it this way … when you say without god, everything is permissable, it begs the question about what permissibility means, because OBVIOUSLY whether a god exists or not, society will most definitely have something to say about how folks behave especially when someone behaves in a *socially unacceptable* way.


  2. Arguments for and against God are valid and can be sound. You have to ask if the argument you side with is because of something about the argument, or because it is entirely something about you. If it’s all about you, then be gracious in honoring the dignity in the “something about others” as they see things differently, yet none the less, just as rationally sound as you and your own hunch.

    This is agnosticism, ignosticism, theism, atheism, and apatheism in a nutshell:

    A rational outlook would be to say a being that transcends reality cannot be known, since all we can know is reality, our frame of reference and what all our thoughts are contingent on.

    Another would be to say that the question of the existence of such a being is incoherent, given the above, and no god-talk can be about God and in trying to signify God, it is literal nonsense.

    Another would be to say that yes, much of the above in both cases is true. But since all thoughts are contingent to reality, the idea of God is natural and then valid; no one invented the idea. Given that numinous experiences do exist, this undergirds the relevance of the idea and its truth. Also, though we have no concept of God aside from experience and though what we say about God doesn’t go for God, it is not nonsense because of relevance. Since our self concepts are based on contact with reality, it makes sense to say experience is why we exist and why we exist in the kind of world we do. Who we are and where we are is exactly how any transcendent being would equip us to discover whatever was meant to be discovered about the divine. And in that case, the question of God is then a necessary one because of its effect on us, and implied since again, reality made the question necessary. It makes sense to say that we in some way, are like whatever “Big Other” there may be and, the better we understand ourselves, the more we will understand whatever purpose we’re here for. In other words, our experiences will be as full as they can be (which is God’s aim), and our concepts of the divine as complete as they can be, all through the necessary, evolving conceptions of God we create, all in response to revelation in the practical sense; our developing sense of self in response to circumstance.

    Of course, it’s rational to say we start with brute facts of existing and the facts of existence and all other ideas we develop must be justified. Any claim of a supernatural realm or reality or being is unnecessary and so, are not justifiable because anything happening in reality is natural and can be explained in those terms alone. Any claim about deity is simply unjustifiable and then is discardable.

    Then one may well look at the question of the existence of deity and rightly conclude that since all of these are rationally equivalent, and since we obviously adopt some view aside from these arguments in and of themselves, any answer is completely dubious. In such a case, there may or may not be a God, but because it is dubious, then a world where God exists and a world where God doesn’t exist are identical and the implication of there being a God has no bearing whatever; “nothing” and “God” literally manifest identically in reality. So, there’s nothing practical in saying “God exists” at all.


  3. ​Whatever we find in reality, it is not dubious at all since not only was it possible, it literally is actual. To say something about reality is dubious without God — the existence of morality, logic, math, butterbeer — because it must have some grander explanation is dubious. The most dubious sort of “grander” is of course, “god”; a being which lay completely outside our ordinary experience and our ability to conceive of, even our ability to say exists. And it must be “god” because anything else is still too ordinary! Yet so “grand” is “god” that by definition, he cannot be related to reality at all, especially to say that without “god”, something in or about reality is impossible, though again, it is the only thing in such a conversation that is actual at all.

    If there is no means by which we can tell the difference between a universe with God and a universe without God, then God is all that can be said to be dubious and nothing else, no matter how queer or long the odds for any fact of the matter in reality.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s