Everyone cares about the important questions of life. But let’s be honest: most of us don’t have the passion or the drive to study them at a deep level. Plus, we probably aren’t enticed at the prospect of working at Starbucks after earning a degree in philosophy. (Sorry, philosophy majors. You know it’s true.) Still, it can be helpful to wrestle with questions and to see how people of different worldviews engage one other. In particular, I’ve been thinking about atheism. Atheism and agnosticism have been on the rise in younger generations in the US. According to research by Barna, Generation Z (the generation after millennials, born 1999-2015) is more than twice as likely to identify as atheist in comparison to the general adult population, although that statistic is still relatively low at 13%. Add to that those who consider themselves agnostic and of no religious affiliation, and the number rises to 35%, a large portion of a generation. Why are we seeing these trends? I’m sure there are several reasons, but for the purpose of this article, I want to pose four conversation starters that I believe bring to light some weaknesses of atheism in particular.
1. What Hope Does Atheism Offer in Comparison to Religious Hope?
I like to make a distinction between generic hope and religious hope. Generic hope refers to the hopes just about every human being shares–hope for a good life, financial success, good health, a good family, our politics to win, our communities and people around us to do well, emotional fulfillment, etc. The nature of religious hope really depends on the religion, but speaking as a Christian, there is beautiful hope that Jesus adds to life. There is hope for personal calling and meaning in life. We are made for a purpose and can fulfill that purpose through a relationship with Jesus and in service to him. There is hope in the face of adversity. Even if my family struggles, I become poor, my politics loses, evil triumphs in my community or nation, my health deteriorates, people dislike me, and I die, Jesus gives me strength in the face of these difficulties and a positive expectation that God can turn bad things around for good. He gives me hope of eternal life after death. He gives me hope for God’s justice and goodness to break forth here and now and the conviction that his justice will finally prevail when Jesus returns to judge the world and evil will finally be put down. He gives hope even when he calls us to sacrifice for his sake, knowing that when we lose things for his sake, we find life and blessing in him. He provides peace, comfort, and growth in all things.
What hope does secular humanism offer in the face of adversity? Atheism seems easy to hold if you’re a person of privilege, but what does it offer you if your health fails, if your politics loses out, if you end up poor, if you experience evil triumphant, if you feel lonely and misunderstood, and, ultimately, when you face death?
2. What Is the Basis for Morality?
I have a hard time seeing any unifying, universal moral code emerging from atheism. That’s not to say that people of no belief or of uncertain belief aren’t moral people–many of them are. They do some good things, and often they want to make the world a better place. But how would you describe what is good, what is right, and what we ought to do from an atheistic framework? Why should we do any of it? Where does the moral impulse come from? Surely the basis for morality is not indulging whatever desires I find inside myself; I see a lot of ugly impulses within me alongside some good ones. People do a lot of nasty things in the name of being true to themselves: divorcing a spouse we find boring, sloughing off responsibility, saying awful things about someone behind their back, or cutting corners to make money. Does morality come from group consensus and majority rule? That varies from place to place. In the early 20th century, the majority of Americans supported Prohibition. Then they didn’t. What about abortion, which continues to remain a closely contested issue in public opinion polls? Didn’t the majority of Germans go along with Hitler’s Nazism? Surely there’s more to morality than public opinion, and we often cling to our beliefs despite what the majority may think. Will you say there is no final truth or morality, that everything is simply subjective interpretations competing for supremacy, that it ultimately doesn’t make any difference which truth you choose? That makes sense to me in an atheistic worldview, but seems anemic in actually bringing people together, binding up the world’s wounds, and standing against evil. Plus, I haven’t met a soul who is totally relativistic in their morality–there would be no reason to critique anyone or anything. Total relativism seems simply to be an invitation to a life of inertia.
As a Christian, the notion of universal standards given by a sovereign creator God has much that is attractive to it. Our all-knowing, loving God designed things to be a certain way. We hurt ourselves, others, the created world, and God himself when we go against that way and sin. Not to mention God will hold us responsible for our choices. Things tend to go well and there is flourishing and blessing when we live according to the way God designed things to go. The basis for morality lies with an ever-present God who applies standards and truths to all people at all times in all places, and there are rewards and punishments according to how we measure up to God’s will.
That’s not to say all Christians agree on everything. If you look for 2 seconds, you’ll find that Christians don’t. We human beings are limited–we will not understand God fully, nor will we fully comprehend all reality. This invites us to humility, to acknowledging that we don’t know everything about God and the world, that we could be wrong about a lot of things, and that there’s always more to learn. I take comfort in knowing that I’m not the source and arbiter of all truth. Jesus is. Yet I trust that Jesus is able to make himself known to us in a way that we can understand sufficiently for God’s purposes for our lives. And the fact that God knows all truth and is the evaluator of all moral action gives urgency for us seeking truth and seeking to live a moral life, even when what’s right is not easily discerned. Jesus is the one who reveals what is true, who vindicates what is good and true in life, and ultimately he will judge the world according to his truth. I am called to always be learning the truth as best I can, to be shaped by his truth, and bear witness to his truth.
Further, many secular humanists in the West hold to a bastardized version of Judeo-Christian values. Consider the value of the equality of all people regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc. That’s straight from Genesis 1:26-27, Romans 2:6-11, and Galatians 3:27-28. Apart from a belief in God making all people of equal worth, why might you believe human beings are of equal value from a secular perspective? Why might you think we should all have certain rights? The values of equality, family, justice, compassion, meaningful work, loving your neighbor, and more all make sense from a Christian framework. God created human beings and the world to be a certain way, and it’s easy to see how those values have made their way into our politics. But strip away the original theology from which these values arose, and suddenly it becomes a lot harder to justify exactly why we hold certain values from a secular perspective.
Again I ask, what is the basis for morality? Can you unify people and hold people accountable to some common standard from an atheistic perspective? What impetus is there for pursuing truth and goodness in secular humanism? Can it escape the center of truth being the individual?
3. What Caused Existence?
I see secular humanism caught in a bind when it comes to origins–either it can’t break out of an infinite regression of causes, or it believes in an unconvincing necessary being. I’m referencing the cosmological argument, an argument for God’s existence that St. Thomas Aquinas appropriated from Aristotle concerning an unmoved mover/uncaused cause/necessary being. I think it has a lot of explanatory power when it comes to understanding origins. The argument utilizes deductive reasoning, saying it is more sensible to believe there is a creator who is eternal and exists outside the standard line of cause and effect than it is to believe in an infinite regression of causes. (An infinite regression of causes is never being able to break out of “What caused that? And what came before that? And what came before that?” on into infinity.) If there is not a being who is outside the standard chain of cause and effect, then it seems likely that time itself wouldn’t exist and life wouldn’t exist, because an infinite regression of causes would mean we never could get back to a definitive beginning of existence. Since we experience time, it seems likely that there was a definitive beginning to time. It makes more sense to believe there is an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause who is outside the standard conception of cause and effect, upon which all of existence depends, who by necessity kickstarted this thing we call life. We Christians and other theists call this being God, and given the nature of existence, the theistic conception of God seems to have a lot of explanatory power.
I once saw an atheist philosopher posit “Nature” as his necessary being and uncaused cause. I’m not sure he really defined what “Nature” is. Is it personal? Does it have a will? If so, “Nature” sounds a lot like God. Or is it just the laws of nature? How likely does it seem that impersonal laws of nature would exist outside the standard line of cause and effect, would start an interdependent world that evolved into creatures that feel and decide, much less human beings who have such high level intellect, emotions, and will? Creatures like human beings seem probable if they are the creation of a God who has mind, emotions, and a will, but to have these kinds of creatures produced by the impersonal, non-willing laws of nature? That seems quite unlikely.
Can secular humanists break out of an infinite regression of causes in their understandings of origins? If not, it seems likely that secular humanists will never be able to be anything but agnostic when it comes to origins. Can they believe in a sensible necessary being besides God? So far, I haven’t been convinced. I’m in favor of continued scientific exploration of origins, but it seems safe to infer that something powerful and personal, outside the standard line of cause and effect, got this whole thing going. God seems to be the most sensible candidate to me.
4. How Do You Make Sense of Widespread Religious Experience?
In other words: are all of us religious folks foolish when it comes to understanding accurately our own experiences? That seems to be the impression we get from the New Atheists, though not all in the unaffiliated camp would be so antagonistic toward religious people. While I do confess that people can go weird places when it comes to religion, people also can go weird places in their atheism (look at Stalin, Mao, & Pol Pot). Surely the intuitions and experiences of the vast majority of the people throughout history and in the world today aren’t total rubbish. According to a 2012 study, Pew Research Center found that only 16.3% of the population of the world could be classified as “Unaffiliated,” their catch-all term for atheists, agnostics, and people who don’t subscribe to a particular religious tradition. But even within that 16.3%, some of them hold spiritual beliefs “such as a belief in God or a universal spirit,” which wouldn’t jibe with most expressions of atheism. Are the majority of people in the world mistaken when it comes to reporting religious experience and belief in a spiritual reality?
What about miracles with medical documentation? A famous site of Catholic pilgrimage and devotion is the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, located in the town of Lourdes in southwestern France, where there have been 70 miraculous healing reports recognized by the Catholic Church. Several of these healings have medical documentation that has been evaluated by the International Lourdes Medical Committee, “an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs,” who comment on whether the recovery is medically explicable or not based on the evidence available. Similarly, Dr. Candy Gunther Brown of the Religion Department of Indiana University published a study in Southern Medical Journal of research conducted at a Pentecostal meeting connected with Iris Ministries in Mozambique. They obtained permission from several volunteer subjects to use medical technology to measure the subjects’ hearing and vision. They later measured these same subjects after they received healing prayer, and recorded significant improvements to the hearing and sight of several.
Further, Christianity isn’t the only religion with reports of spiritual power encounters that change people. Dr. Edith Turner (now deceased) was an anthropologist who, along with her husband Victor, was studying the Ndembu people in Zambia. An anthropological practice is to “go native” and participate in the rituals of the people you study as though you believe in them yourself, even if you don’t. Dr. Turner went native, and throughout her career reported things such as healing, clairvoyance, a witch doctor extracting a bad spirit from a sick woman’s back (it came out in the form of a gray blob), trances, and more. She became an adherent to a shamanistic form of religion in the aftermath of her experiences.
How would secular humanism respond to the majority of people in the world reporting spiritual encounters? What about the encounters that profoundly change people, and the ones with corroborating testimonies and medical documentation? I don’t deny that there are fakers out there when it comes to faith healing and spiritual power, but there are multiple stories that seem extremely difficult to controvert.
Conclusion
In conclusion, secular humanism struggles to articulate hope beyond the generic hopes everyone shares concerning life, with no hope after death. I have not seen it offer a believable concept of universal right and wrong, as well as a basis for a unifying morality. The origin of life is a mystery, and we cannot sensibly understand it or see an overarching purpose behind it. It is dismissive of widespread religious experience, spiritual power encounters, and documented healings. In short, I fail to see how this is a more compelling worldview than the Christian faith. In Christianity, you have strong hope, a sensible morality, a framework for understanding origins, and a loving God you can encounter by experience. Logic and argumentation alone cannot prove God, but it can lead us to to dip our toes into the waters of faith, to “taste and see that Lord is good.” My encouragement to Generation Z is to search, study, and give yourselves over to Christian spiritual practices for a few weeks. See if Jesus won’t meet you there.
1. What Hope Does Atheism Offer in Comparison to Religious Hope?
ReplyDeleteIt's essential to understand that hope, resilience, and meaning are not exclusive to religious belief or affiliation. Atheism or secular humanism doesn't inherently prescribe any specific set of beliefs or hope, as they are not religions or belief systems, but rather lack thereof or the stance that human values should not be based on religious doctrine. However, the individuals within these categories can certainly derive hope, find meaning, and overcome adversity in numerous ways, just as religious individuals do.
For many atheists and secular humanists, hope stems from a variety of sources. Some find it in the innate human ability to learn, change, and improve. Hope might lie in the progress of scientific discovery, in the potential for societal growth, or in the possibility of personal development. They can be hopeful for a better future because they believe in the power of human action to effect positive change.
Atheism or secular humanism doesn't necessarily mean a lack of moral or ethical compass, as some people might assume. Many atheists subscribe to ethical systems like consequentialism, deontology, or virtue ethics, and these systems provide their own sorts of hope. For example, the hope that through one's actions, one can contribute to the overall good, uphold a moral duty, or cultivate virtues.
The question also seems to imply that atheism only works for privileged individuals who do not face significant hardships. However, adversity does not solely necessitate a religious solution. In the face of adversity, many atheists and secular humanists find resilience in community support, in the potential for personal growth, in the shared human experience of suffering, and in the drive to overcome challenges and make the world better for those who come after them.
Even in the face of death, nonbelievers can find solace and acceptance in the natural order of life. Many see death as a part of the life cycle rather than an end to be feared, a perspective that offers its own form of peace.
Hopelessness in Christian Faith:
DeleteReliance on Divine Intervention: How does a Christian maintain hope when prayers go unanswered or when divine intervention doesn't seem to come in the face of adversity? If God's plan is perfect and all-encompassing, how do Christians reconcile this with the existence of significant suffering and evil in the world?
Exclusivity of Salvation: Christianity traditionally teaches that salvation and eternal life are available only through faith in Jesus Christ. How does this align with the reality of the diverse world we live in, with numerous cultures, religions, and philosophical systems that have provided meaning, morality, and hope for billions of people throughout history?
Differences in Interpretation: There are thousands of denominations within Christianity itself, each interpreting the Bible and the teachings of Jesus in different ways. How does this diversity affect the hope and certainty offered by Christianity? Can one be confident in their own interpretation and salvation when there are so many differing views?
The Problem of Hell: The traditional concept of Hell as a place of eternal torment presents a difficult moral and theological problem. How does the idea of a loving God reconcile with the belief in eternal punishment for non-believers or sinners? Does this not create a climate of fear rather than genuine love and understanding?
The Challenges of Faith: Maintaining faith in unseen divine entities and miracles described in ancient texts can be challenging in an increasingly scientific and secular world. How does one maintain such faith and hope when it seems at odds with empirical evidence and the scientific understanding of the universe?
2. What is the Basis for Morality?
DeleteUnderstanding the basis of morality from a secular perspective requires an appreciation of the fact that moral concepts can be shaped and refined through human reasoning, empathy, and understanding, independent of any theistic belief.
The notion of morality as a product of atheistic or secular thinking is typically founded on principles like the golden rule, empathy, and shared human experience. Such principles underlie many ethical theories, including utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, that do not necessitate a divine command theory of ethics.
One may posit that morality is fundamentally about the relationships we have with each other and the broader society, and thus, morality is shaped by empathy and compassion for others' experiences. This is why we generally see it as morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to others - not because of a divine decree, but because we can empathize with the suffering of others and understand that unnecessary suffering is undesirable.
Morality can also be seen as a product of social and evolutionary processes, whereby societies that cooperated and looked out for the well-being of their members tended to survive and thrive, while those that did not, faltered. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, the basis for morality can be seen in terms of cooperative behaviors that contribute to the survival and flourishing of our species.
This is not to say that a secular morality is wholly relativistic or purely subjective. Just as there are disagreements among religious believers about what constitutes moral behavior, there are disagreements among secular thinkers. However, the lack of an absolute arbiter does not mean that all moral claims are equally valid. Through reasoning and dialogue, we can evaluate and refine our moral understanding, moving towards a more objective understanding of what contributes to human well-being.
Indeed, the struggle for equality, justice, and human rights can be seen as part of this broader project. The idea that all human beings have inherent worth and should be treated with dignity is not necessarily derived from any particular religious text but can be grounded in an understanding of our shared humanity.
Secular humanism, in particular, affirms the value of every individual based on their capacity to lead ethical and fulfilling lives without recourse to religious beliefs. The impetus for pursuing truth and goodness in secular humanism comes from a recognition of our interconnectedness and a commitment to improving the human condition.
In sum, while there might not be a universally accepted secular morality, there are robust secular ethical theories and systems that provide solid frameworks for moral behavior. These systems are not centered on the individual but are based on our shared human condition and the objective pursuit of human well-being.
Moral Confusion In Christianity:
Delete• Is God's Morality Immutable?
In Christian theology, God is often described as the eternal and unchanging source of moral law. However, if we examine the Old and New Testaments, we find significant changes in what is deemed morally acceptable. For example, the Old Testament seems to allow for behaviors such as slavery and polygamy, which are generally seen as immoral today. How can we reconcile the concept of an unchanging God with the apparent changes in God's moral law? And if God's moral law can change, doesn't this undermine the idea of it as a solid, unchanging foundation for morality?
• How Do We Interpret Divine Commands?
Different Christian denominations often interpret the Bible in different ways, leading to disagreements over moral issues. For example, some denominations accept homosexuality, while others see it as sinful. If morality is based on divine commands, how can we be sure we're interpreting those commands correctly? If two well-meaning and devout Christians can interpret the same biblical passage in completely different ways, doesn't this suggest that divine command theory is subject to the same kind of subjective interpretation and disagreement that you believe undermines secular morality?
• Is Morality Truly Universal?
If we accept that morality comes from a divine source, how do we account for the vast differences in moral norms and values across different cultures and religions? Isn't it possible that our understanding of morality is influenced more by our cultural and societal contexts than by a divine law? Moreover, if we find moral laws that are universal across cultures and religions, wouldn't this suggest that morality could exist independently of any specific religious framework?
• Is Divine Command Theory Ultimately Self-Interested?
Under divine command theory, we obey God's laws because we desire the rewards of Heaven and fear the punishments of Hell. But isn't this ultimately a form of self-interest, rather than genuine morality? In other words, if we're obeying moral laws simply to avoid punishment and gain reward, can we truly be said to be moral? Would a morality based on empathy, compassion, and mutual respect, even in the absence of divine rewards and punishments, not be a more genuine form of morality?
• Are Morality and Religion Necessarily Entwined?
Many non-religious people lead moral lives, just as many religious people commit immoral acts. Moreover, studies have found little difference in moral behavior between religious and non-religious people. How can we reconcile these facts with the claim that religion, specifically Christianity, is necessary for morality? Could it be possible that morality is a natural aspect of our human nature, independent of any religious belief?
3. What Caused Existence?
DeleteThe question of the origins of existence is certainly complex, and it is one that has been addressed by various scientific and philosophical perspectives. Let's consider a secular humanist's response to the points made here.
Firstly, it's important to remember that acknowledging the current limits of scientific understanding does not necessarily entail agnosticism about the origins of existence. Instead, it reflects an openness to new empirical evidence and theoretical developments. Secular humanists, like scientists, can maintain a tentative and open-ended stance about questions of origins, constantly re-evaluating their beliefs in light of new evidence and ideas.
Regarding the cosmological argument and the problem of infinite regression, secular humanists might point to the developments in quantum physics and cosmology. For example, the notion of time as we understand it doesn't apply at the quantum level, and it's possible that our universe arose from quantum fluctuations in a larger multiverse. In this view, there is no need for an "uncaused cause" or a "necessary being." The universe, as understood through the lens of quantum mechanics, can be both uncaused and necessary. This is admittedly difficult to grasp intuitively because it defies our everyday experiences of time and causality, but it's a serious scientific hypothesis nonetheless.
Furthermore, it's important to remember that scientific explanations do not require the causes they describe to have personal characteristics or a will. The claim that it's "unlikely" that complex, feeling creatures like us could arise from impersonal laws of nature underestimates the creative potential of processes like evolution by natural selection. Over billions of years, simple life forms have evolved into highly complex organisms, including humans with our high-level intellects and emotions. The process of evolution is not guided by a personal will, but by the impersonal and statistical forces of genetic variation and environmental selection. Nonetheless, it's capable of generating complex and seemingly purposeful designs.
When it comes to the nature of the "necessary being," an atheist might argue that the laws of physics or the universe itself could be regarded as necessary in the sense that they form the bedrock of existence, without requiring any further explanation. This is not to anthropomorphize nature or the laws of physics, but to acknowledge that they provide the framework within which all events and entities exist and can be understood.
While secular humanists do not claim to have definitive answers to the question of the origins of existence, they approach this mystery with a commitment to scientific inquiry and philosophical reflection. They remain open to new empirical evidence and theoretical developments, without needing to posit a personal, willful creator to explain the existence of complex, feeling beings like us.
Cosmological Speculation or Arrogance in Christianity:
Delete• Can God be the "First Cause"?
You refer to the concept of God as the "uncaused cause" or the "necessary being" as a solution to the problem of infinite regression. However, one could argue that this simply pushes the problem back one step further: what caused God? If God does not require a cause, why should the universe? Doesn't positing God as the first cause merely sidestep the problem rather than genuinely solving it?
• Is Complexity an Indicator of Design?
You suggest that the complexity of life implies a designer, with a mind, emotions, and a will. But doesn't this argument imply that God, who must be infinitely more complex than His creation, also requires a designer? If complexity implies a designer, then wouldn't God, as the most complex entity imaginable, also need a creator?
• Is the Notion of God as a Personal Creator Consistent with Scientific Understanding?
The idea of a personal God creating the universe seems to be in direct conflict with our scientific understanding of the cosmos. From what we know about cosmology, evolution, and physics, the universe appears to function according to impersonal, mathematical laws. How do you reconcile the impersonal laws of physics with the idea of a personal creator? Isn't it more consistent to view the universe as the product of impersonal processes, rather than the intentional act of a personal being?
• Is God Necessary for Existence?
You argue that God is necessary for existence. However, many philosophers and scientists have proposed models of reality that do not require a deity. In fact, some of these models suggest that universes could arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations. How do you respond to these alternative explanations? Isn't it possible that existence does not require a divine source?
• How Do You Reconcile the Vastness of Time and Space with a Personal Creator?
Cosmological observations suggest that our universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old and contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. How do you reconcile this vastness with the idea of a personal God who is concerned with human beings on a tiny planet in a corner of one galaxy? Doesn't the vastness of the cosmos make the idea of a personal creator seem unlikely?
4. How Do You Make Sense of Widespread Religious Experience?
DeleteUnderstanding and making sense of widespread religious experiences are important aspects of human anthropology, sociology, and psychology, whether one identifies as a secular humanist or not. The fact that many people report having religious or spiritual experiences is undeniable and should not be dismissed out of hand. However, interpreting these experiences is a complex task, and it's essential to approach it with both empathy and critical thinking.
First, it's important to recognize that the human brain is a remarkably complex and powerful organ capable of generating a wide array of experiences, many of which can feel profoundly meaningful or otherworldly. Neurological and psychological studies have demonstrated that certain practices, such as meditation, prayer, or the use of certain substances, can induce states of consciousness that feel spiritual or mystical. It's also been shown that emotional states, such as awe or existential anxiety, can stimulate spiritual feelings and beliefs. Therefore, it's possible that many spiritual experiences are brain-based phenomena.
Additionally, the cultural and societal context in which one lives plays a crucial role in shaping one's religious or spiritual experiences. For example, a person who grows up in a predominantly Christian community is more likely to have Christian-themed experiences or interpret their experiences through a Christian lens, while someone from a Hindu community might interpret similar experiences through a Hindu lens. This suggests that religious experiences often reflect our culturally ingrained beliefs and expectations rather than revealing objective spiritual truths.
As for miracle claims, they require rigorous scrutiny. While there are certainly cases where medical outcomes have defied expectations, it's essential to remember that the body's capacity to heal itself is not fully understood and can be remarkably resilient. Anecdotal accounts of healing should be treated with caution because they're often subject to confirmation bias, the placebo effect, and the natural variability of medical conditions. Rigorous, controlled scientific studies are the best way to determine whether a treatment or intervention, including prayer or other religious practices, has a genuine healing effect.
Moreover, humans are inherently prone to cognitive biases that can lead us to perceive patterns and purpose where there are none, attribute agency to random events, and overvalue anecdotal evidence. These tendencies, while useful in certain contexts, can also lead us to mistakenly interpret natural or psychological phenomena as supernatural or divine.
Secular humanism does not necessarily dismiss religious experiences but seeks to understand them from a naturalistic perspective. Such experiences are seen as part of the rich tapestry of human consciousness, culture, and cognition, rather than as evidence for the supernatural. This approach allows us to appreciate the depth and diversity of human spiritual experiences while also embracing a worldview grounded in empirical observation and critical thinking.
Widespread Conflicting Religious Experiences Undermine Christian Faith:
Delete• Subjectivity and Interpretation of Religious Experiences: If religious experiences are indeed divinely inspired, why do they seem so influenced by the cultural and religious contexts of the individuals who have them? Wouldn't we expect God, if omnipotent and universal, to reveal Himself in a consistent, identifiable manner across different cultures and religious contexts?
• Non-Christian Religious Experiences: How do you explain the equally profound and transformative spiritual experiences reported by followers of non-Christian religions? If you attribute your own religious experiences to the Christian God, does that mean other religious experiences are invalid or influenced by other divine entities? How do you reconcile this with the Christian belief in a single, true God?
• Miracles and Medical Documentation: As you mentioned, there have been cases where medical outcomes have defied expectations, and these are often labeled as miracles. However, wouldn't you agree that our understanding of the human body and its healing processes is not yet complete? Could these unexpected recoveries be attributed to unknown natural processes rather than divine intervention? Why are there no reliably documented cases of a limb miraculously regrowing?
• Influence of Cognitive Biases: We know that human beings are inherently susceptible to various cognitive biases, which can lead to misinterpretations or misperceptions of events. Given this fact, how can we definitively separate divinely inspired experiences from psychological phenomena induced by our brains?
• Exclusivity of Religious Experiences: If religious experiences are a reliable pathway to truth, why do they lead to such a diversity of beliefs, many of which contradict each other? How does one discern the 'correct' spiritual experience from the myriad of experiences reported across the globe?
• Empirical Evidence: If we should accept religious experiences as evidence of God's existence, why has there been no universally accepted, verifiable, empirical evidence of God or the divine? If God wishes to be known, wouldn't He provide such evidence to ensure that everyone could know Him without relying on subjective and often inconsistent personal experiences?