Filling the Void
In a recent blog post, the writer suggests, by the title “Saying Goodbye to Your Imaginary Friend,” that persons should turn away from believing in God.
The claim is through childhood, children may easily develop beliefs that fictional characters and invisible friends are somewhat true, since their ability to perceive fact and fiction is greatly less than adults. Although, as a child grows and matures, they begin to see the line between fact and fiction in somewhat of a new light, realizing that some things they considered to be fact are but fictional, and some things they considered to be fiction are actually factual.
It is here that the writer would like to assume that Christianity is merely made of adults who are unable to say goodbye to childhood fantasy, without Filling the Void with another fantasy, namely a mythical being we call God. Interestingly, throughout time man has also filled science with cases of unexplainable fantasy, only to later replace fantasy with more fantasy, or sometimes even having to come to terms with the fact that they simply believed fictional thinking. Some may wish to claim that science merely corrects itself, and man continues to question it, but I can’t help but ponder is it all just Filling the Void of their childhood fantasies, as they say Christianity is.
It seems there is a failure to understand, in their own examples, how a doctor can both pray to God for wisdom and healing, but also use the technology God has allowed our generation to have. Why can one not accept it is completely acceptable for an Engineer to both use the proper tools to design and construct a building, as he also prays to God asking for wisdom and blessing upon his work? Why can the writer not understand, there need not be one without the other?
In closing the writer claims, “as adults, it is time for us to say goodbye to the remnants of a long-ago childhood, and embrace a godless, free-spirited future with logic, rationality and passion as our steering wheel.”
In questioning such a thought, I simply asked, “But what exactly do people turn to, when they turn away from God? It is not always "logic" or "rationality," for sometimes it is merely for a "passion" to do that which they know God has commanded not to.”
The writer’s response was, “This is a question I was faced with when I became an atheist. I guess everyone has to find an answer to fill in that void.
The claim is through childhood, children may easily develop beliefs that fictional characters and invisible friends are somewhat true, since their ability to perceive fact and fiction is greatly less than adults. Although, as a child grows and matures, they begin to see the line between fact and fiction in somewhat of a new light, realizing that some things they considered to be fact are but fictional, and some things they considered to be fiction are actually factual.
It is here that the writer would like to assume that Christianity is merely made of adults who are unable to say goodbye to childhood fantasy, without Filling the Void with another fantasy, namely a mythical being we call God. Interestingly, throughout time man has also filled science with cases of unexplainable fantasy, only to later replace fantasy with more fantasy, or sometimes even having to come to terms with the fact that they simply believed fictional thinking. Some may wish to claim that science merely corrects itself, and man continues to question it, but I can’t help but ponder is it all just Filling the Void of their childhood fantasies, as they say Christianity is.
It seems there is a failure to understand, in their own examples, how a doctor can both pray to God for wisdom and healing, but also use the technology God has allowed our generation to have. Why can one not accept it is completely acceptable for an Engineer to both use the proper tools to design and construct a building, as he also prays to God asking for wisdom and blessing upon his work? Why can the writer not understand, there need not be one without the other?
In closing the writer claims, “as adults, it is time for us to say goodbye to the remnants of a long-ago childhood, and embrace a godless, free-spirited future with logic, rationality and passion as our steering wheel.”
In questioning such a thought, I simply asked, “But what exactly do people turn to, when they turn away from God? It is not always "logic" or "rationality," for sometimes it is merely for a "passion" to do that which they know God has commanded not to.”
The writer’s response was, “This is a question I was faced with when I became an atheist. I guess everyone has to find an answer to fill in that void.
Some turn to sports, others turn to science, and depending on your passion, there is always something concrete to hold onto, till life ceases to exist no more.”
So, we have adults which turn away from God, which sent His Son Jesus Christ to forgive sinners of sin, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, turning to sports, science, and to any other thing which fulfills the lusts of one’s passions. These things are not concrete, nor do they give one comfort in the moment of death, nor through times of struggle, hurt, or need. They are simply a temporal, man-made solution in hopes of Filling the Void. They are unable to fulfill mankind’s eternal need of Christ dwelling in us as Lord and Saviour.
Interestingly, one does not need to turn away from God to enjoy sports, or some of the things science has given us. There is also no reason to hold back one’s prayers and thanksgiving toward God, for what He has given us to enjoy and use to make our lives better. Physical man-made things, regardless of how grand they may appear, cannot fill the spiritual void within mankind’s being. To believe one can fill that gap with fleshly entertainment and wisdom is merely missing the mark, not Filling the Void. The void remains with a superficial covering which must be continually maintained and/or replaced with a new one.
Most, if honest, would confess that the point at which they turn their backs on God, is because they refuse to adhere to His Word: Loving the sin over the Savior. Denying sin as sin, merely acknowledging they may do some things wrong, people falsely believe they are removing themselves from their accountability to a holy, sinless God. Why deny one’s sins, when our great God has made provision through Christ, that it may be forgiven thee? Simply turn to God, repent of your sins, put faith in the work of Christ, whereby you may be saved and cleansed.
In salvation, one has Jesus Christ Filling the Void, for in turning one’s back on God, the void yet remains.
12 comments:
"Interestingly, throughout time man has also filled science with cases of unexplainable fantasy, only to later replace fantasy with more fantasy, or sometimes even having to come to terms with the fact that they simply believed fictional thinking."
If science is remarkably filled with "unexplainable fantasy", perhaps you may like to point to that light bulb that lights up your bedroom. Or the lightning rod on your house that keeps your house safe from the holy smite from "gawd".
In any case, I posted a rebuttal to your post on my blog:
Since you have Dawkin's book, check out what he says about the God Hypothesis and NOMA (Non Overlapping Magistera).
Science may not conclusively prove that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean science can't comment on the God hypothesis. In fact, evidence from physics and biology points to a Creatorless Universe.
Beast
You claim that we atheists, unbelievers and heathens do not acknowledge our "wrongs", but what about the Christians?
The Christians who so vehemently carry out their hate campaign against gays, the Christians who refuse to ban slavery, and the Christians who so love to kill others who do not believe in their faiths? And most importantly, do Christians know they are wrong when they teach children the lies about safe sex, hence encouraging the spread of teen births, STDS, and AIDS?
Beast
Beast,
Your question:
"You claim that we atheists, unbelievers and heathens do not acknowledge our "wrongs", but what about the Christians?"
Here is my statement again:
"Denying sin as sin, merely acknowledging they may do some things wrong, people falsely believe they are removing themselves from their accountability to a holy, sinless God."
I did not write that "atheists, unbelievers and heathens do not acknowledge our "wrongs"," but that PEOPLE do not acknowledge things to be sin against God. I clearly said that PEOPLE acknowledge they do some things wrong. (Even Christians turn their backs on God when they choose to sin, rather than do what is right.)
And I agree, as Christians, although we realize sin as sin, we sometimes fail to acknowledge when we do wrong in sinning. We are called upon to repent, and we should. But since you do not consider God, or view Scripture as necessary, your view of right and wrong tends to vary from that of Christianity.
And would my views be necessarily wrong? Couldn't the bible be wrong too? After all, we can't go around stoning disobedient children and killing folks who collect sticks on Sabbath days?
Beast
Beast,
There is no evidence that can be brought forth to point toward a "Creatorless Universe." Didn't you say you can't prove a negative (i.e. God does not exist)? Anything that science produces to assume there is no God, is being misinterpreted to ease their conscience.
Dawkins' very on definiton of himself: "[6] Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”"
Assumptions are sometimes wrong, and eternity is a long time to pay for an incorrect assumption.
Read my statement again:
"Science may not conclusively prove that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean science can't comment on the God hypothesis. In fact, evidence from physics and biology points to a Creatorless Universe."
No one can prove 100% that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but do you wish to wage your bet on its existence?
(6) is the stand for most atheists, including myself. Since the probability of the existence of a deity is equivalent to the Cosmic McMuffin, I can jolly well negate his existence. That is a fair and rational response.
And your last post is more ludicrous, especially after I have all but debunked Pascal's Wager (Even Pascal himself wasn't convinced that rationality had anything to do with it).
Beast
You continuously (meaning, in at least several of your posts) point to this particular quote of Dawkins': "[6] Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”" He only phrases it this way to be as diplomatic and scientifically correct as possible. By his reasoning (and his reasoning is what counts because he invented the scale), NO ONE is the absolutely higest on EITHER end of the scale (1 or 7). You and Mother Theresa and the Pope are all number 2's, because you cannot prove that there IS a God, but you live your life based on the assumption that there is.
Again,
Living as though one assumes there is no God, is not the same as pronouncing "there is no God."
It still remains merely an assumption, which could prove to be eternally fatal.
Note:
One is wagering eternal torment with assuming there is no God and no hell.
By trusting in Christ and beliving in God, if it were possible neither exist, I lose nothing.
Tim
Wagering is not even a good term to use. Talk about taking a wild swing of the bat, blindfolded, trying to hit the target.
There are thousands of religions, all having wild assertions about their beliefs; almost all are similar, with distinctive threats of hells and the polemic rewards of heaven. Even a trip to the casino wouldn't yield such dramatic odds.
Any attempt to justify Pascal's wager will only invite ridicule and laughter, and for you, Tim, to keep running to it like a suckling baby to a mother(no offense to the baby and the mother, for both are natural, evolutionary acts), is quite puzzling to me.
Beast
Beast,
The reason I wrote:
"One is *wagering* eternal torment with assuming there is no God and no hell."
Is because you wrote:
"No one can prove 100% that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but do you wish to *wage your bet* on its existence?"
Tim
Tim:
I used the term "wager" because you allude to Pascal's wager, and my rebuttal was against Pascal's use of wager, because the question of a belief in God is not merely confined within the parameters of belief and disbelief.
Beast
Post a Comment