God’s Not Dead, Introduction – My Story (pt2)
As a third year university student, my personal problems became too big to ignore. As much as I tried to run from them or drown them with drugs or alcohol, they only grew larger. The turning point came when I began to doubt my doubts about God and I humbled myself by admitting I had deep needs.
This is quite possibly the lowest point in the author’s life. At times like these we are vulnerable and highly suggestible, the fact that Christianity promises so much good will come to believers it is not very surprising that he turned to religion. After reading and thinking about the first sentence the second only brought to mind a controversial quote by Dieter Uchtdorf of the LDS Church.
I decided to believe God’s story and accept it as true – not just true for me but really true for all humanity – the metanarrative that defines reality in this age of uncertainty.
So, once again, the author mentions humans having an active role in belief. I am of the camp that we do not choose what we believe, we believe because we are convinced (consciously or not) by evidence. The Atheist Experience show had a clip about this and also you need only Google it to see the resounding response that, no, it isn’t a conscious choice to be made.
The Skeptic may be reading this book from a critical point of view and a predetermined mind-set that there is no God. My hope is that regardless of how attached this reader is to skepticism, the following evidence will ironically allow a seed of doubt to be planted, helping that person break free of the matrix of a godless worldview and embrace the real story that best correcesponds to the evidence, the one that declares, “God’s not dead.”
Everyone who reads this book should read it from a critical point of view not just “The Skeptic”. It is strange but not surprising that the author, who is likely writing this book directed at atheists, has the wrong definitions of atheist and skeptic in his mind. In my side-bar commentary I explained the difference between a gnostic and an agnostic best represented in this picture:
Gnosticism (knowledge behind a claim) and theism (god claim) are not the same. They speak about different parts of a claim. “The Skeptic” holds beliefs because of evidence. We don’t believe something in opposition to the facts. No matter whether we like the answer or not. If compelling evidence appeared “The Skeptic” would change their position. A very telling moment from the Nye v. Ham debate showed this point perfectly.
One last point to be made is that believing in a god claim wouldn’t necessarily lead one to respect, follow, or revere that god. Lucifer had a perfect knowledge that God existed but acted against Him. The author seemingly thinks that providing evidence for the existence of the god of the Bible would force more followers into Christianity. I, for one, would not be one of those after reading of the atrocities and horrors and pride presented as the ‘loving’ god of the Bible.
That’s all for the Introduction, sorry its so long but that’s how things go. What one person can claim in one sentence can rarely be refuted in the like. I have only touched on the larger spots of contention and will try to edit the future chapters even more. Thanks for reading and you deserve a prize if you actually stuck with it this far and are reading this sentence!