Fighting Fit
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
‘I have never been happier’ says the man who won gold but lost God
A giant leap of faith took Jonathan Edwards to Olympic glory in Sydney. Then he found the foundations of his life were crumbling
Read Libby Purves's blog on Jonathan Edwards
It is the afternoon of September 25, 2000, and Jonathan Edwards is making his way to the triple jump final at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney. In his kitbag are some shirts, spikes, towels – and a tin of sardines.
Why the sardines? They have been chosen by Edwards to symbolise the fish that Jesus used in the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. They are, if you like, the physical manifestation of his faith in God.
As he enters the stadium, he offers a silent prayer: “I place my destiny in Your hands. Do with me as You will.” A few hours later he has captured the gold medal, securing his status as one of Britain’s greatest athletes.
Related Links
Multimedia
“I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
— Matthew xvii, 20
Edwards’s faith was never an optional add-on. It has been fundamental to his identity – something that has permeated every fibre of his being – since his trips to Sunday school in the company of his devout parents; since he went to a Christian youth camp in North Devon and devoted his life to Jesus, tears streaming down his cheeks and his face glowing with divine revelation. Since he decided to risk everything to follow God’s revealed path, moving to Newcastle in 1987 to become a full-time athlete in the belief that his preordained success would enable him to evangelise to an unbelieving world; since he withdrew from the World Championships in Tokyo in 1991 because his event was scheduled for the Sabbath.
By the time Edwards retired from athletics in 2003, he had established himself as one of Britain’s most prominent born-again Christians. He soon landed the job of fronting a landmark documentary on the life of St Paul and also secured the presenting role on the BBC’s flagship religious programme, Songs of Praise. He looked to have made the transition to life after sport with a sureness of touch that eludes so many professional athletes. Perhaps this was another advantage of his bedrock faith in God.
But even as he toured the nation’s churches with his BBC crew, Edwards was confronting an apocalyptic realisation: that it was all a grand mistake; that his epiphany was nothing more than self-delusion; that his inner sense of God’s presence was fictitious; that the decisions he had taken in life were based on a false premise; that the Bible is not literal truth but literal falsehood; that life is not something imbued with meaning from on high but, possibly, a purposeless accident in an unfeeling universe.
Having left his sport as a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical, Edwards is now, to all intents and purposes, an atheist. But why? It is a question that has reverberated around the Christian community since the rumours began to circulate when Edwards resigned from Songs of Praise in February. Edwards a backslider? Impossible.
I am sitting opposite Edwards, 41, in the garden of his large home in Gosforth on the outskirts of Newcastle, but he does not resemble a man whose world has been turned upside down. His boyish face, cropped with sparkling, silver-grey strands, is alert and alive. One gets the impression that he is looking forward to the ordeal of a lengthy interview. Perhaps he regards it as a kind of confessional, an opportunity to bare all and be done.
“I never doubted my belief in God for a single moment until I retired from sport,” he says. “Faith was the reason that I decided to become a professional athlete, in the same way that it was fundamental to every decision I made. It was the foundation of my existence, the thing that made everything else make sense. It was not a sacrifice to refuse to compete on Sundays during my early career because that would imply that athletics was important in and of itself. It was not. It was always a means to an end: glorifying God.
“But when I retired, something happened that took me by complete surprise. I quickly realised that athletics was more important to my identity than I believed possible. I was the best in the world at what I did and suddenly that was not true any more. With one facet of my identity stripped away, I began to question the others and, from there, there was no stopping. The foundations of my world were slowly crumbling.”
Edwards retains the earnest intensity that was his hallmark when he gave talks and sermons at churches up and down the country. He is a serious person who regards life as a serious business, even if he is now unsure of its deeper meaning. But why did someone with such a penetrating intellect leave it so long to question the beliefs upon which he had constructed his life? “It was as if during my 20-plus-year career in athletics, I had been suspended in time,” he says.
“I was so preoccupied with training and competing that I did not have the time or emotional inclination to question my beliefs. Sport is simple, with simple goals and a simple lifestyle. I was quite happy in a world populated by my family and close friends, people who shared my belief system. Leaving that world to get involved with television and other projects gave me the freedom to question everything.”
“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
— 1 Corinthians i, 20
“Once you start asking yourself questions like, ‘How do I really know there is a God?’ you are already on the path to unbelief,” Edwards says. “During my documentary on St Paul, some experts raised the possibility that his spectacular conversion on the road to Damascus might have been caused by an epileptic fit. It made me realise that I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis. When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.”
Would Edwards have been as successful a sportsman had he been assailed by such doubts? It is a question that the world record-holder confronts with bracing candour. “Looking back now, I can see that my faith was not only pivotal to my decision to take up sport but also my success,” he says. “I was always dismissive of sports psychology when I was competing, but I now realise that my belief in God was sports psychology in all but name.”
Muhammad Ali once asked: “How can I lose when I have Allah on my side?” Edwards understands the potency of such beliefs, even as he questions their philosophical legitimacy.
“Believing in something beyond the self can have a hugely beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is fallacious,” he says. “It provided a profound sense of reassurance for me because I took the view that the result was in God’s hands. He would love me, win, lose or draw. The tin of sardines I took to the Olympic final in Sydney was a tangible reminder of that.”
The upheaval of recent months has not left Edwards emotionally scarred, at least not visibly. “I am not unhappy about the fact that there might not be a God,” he says. “I don’t feel that my life has a big, gaping hole in it. In some ways I feel more human than I ever have. There is more reality in my existence than when I was full-on as a believer. It is a completely different world to the one I inhabited for 37 years, so there are feelings of unfamiliarity.
“There have also been issues to address in terms of my relationships with family and friends, many of whom are Christians. But I feel internally happier than at any time of my life, more content within my own skin. Maybe it is because I am not viewing the world through a specific set of spectacles.”
“If I should cast off this tattered coat, And go free into the mighty sky; If I should find nothing there, But a vast blue, Echoless, ignorant – What then?
— Stephen Crane, The Black Riders and Other Lines
“The only inner problem that I face now is a philosophical one,” Edwards says. “If there is no God, does that mean that life has no purpose? Does it mean that personal existence ends at death? They are thoughts that do my head in. One thing that I can say, however, is that even if I am unable to discover some fundamental purpose to life, this will not give me a reason to return to Christianity. Just because something is unpalatable does not mean that it is not true.”
His crisis of faith offers a metaphysical dimension to the inner turmoil that afflicts so many sportsmen on their retirement. Some will say he has journeyed from light into darkness, others that he has journeyed from darkness into light – but none could doubt the honesty with which he has travelled. The Eric Liddell of his generation has sacrificed his religious beliefs on the altar of intellectual honesty, a martyr of a kind.
World of his own
— A committed Christian, Edwards refused to compete on a Sunday until 1993, most notably missing the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo. “It is an outward sign that God comes first in my life,” he said at the time.
— Contested the World Championships for the first time in 1993, the first of five successive appearances, winning a medal at each one, including gold in 1995 and 2001.
— There was little hint of his 12 months to come in 1995 when, the previous year, he finished sixth at the European Championships, second at the Commonwealth Games and was ranked No 9 in the world.
— Edwards’s life changed in 1995, when he set three world and seven British records, achieving the unprecedented feat of two world records in his first two jumps of the final of the World Championships in Gothenburg. His 18.29 metres that day remains the world record. His wind-assisted 18.43, to win the European Cup in Lille, is the longest triple jump on record.
— A run of 22 consecutive victories ended when he finished second to Kenny Harrison, of the United States, at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. Edwards had finished 23rd and 35th in his two previous Olympics and finished second and third at the World Championships between Atlanta and the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, where he took gold.
Words by David Powell
Really sad to just hear of this.
David, Inverness,
Christopher O'connor- what will YOU do when you arrive in heaven to meet Allah, & not your God? or perhaps Shiva? or etc..etc.. the point is that Edwards has thought about this for the 1st time in his life. 99% of the time your faith is the one your parents indoctrinate you with from birth-nuff said
jared, London, UK
Just because some things may not be perfectly accurate in Christian history does NOT mean that there is no God. Humans are fallible, we make mistakes, translate wrong, cover up history or re-write it. The fact is, all one has to do is look around our amazing world to realize there IS a creator.
Maria, Corvallis, USA
Good on you Mr Edwards.You saw through the facade and woke up and then realised that this life is only one we have.Its amazing how people can delude themselves by not only believing but by believing they ´see and feel`a God. Amazing the lengths people wil go to convince themselves a falsehood.
Phil, Edinburgh, Scotland
It's about time we started to realise just how special we are as a species without the help of imaginary friends. Now he can think what he likes and analyse his thoughts objectively without the guilt and obstacles of religion. Well done!
Malcolm, Thame, U.K.
Jonathan . Jesus broke into literal history to die for your sins and to give you eternal life . If your sins are not on his broken bodily sacrifice which God has accepted ,then what will you say to Him when you face Him as judge if as it seems you have rejected His solution to your unrightousness.
Christopher O' Connor, Worcester, UK
Someone here wrote:
>But let us not lose hope - remember C S Lewis - he was raised in a Church-going family...became an atheist and...in his thirties, he came to CHRIST. Keep praying for Jonathan.<
Prayer can't change what a god ordains. To be a Christian is to think illogically and uncritically.
Dave, Los Angeles, USA
I ask questions about God's existence all the time, and it doesn't put me on a sliding slope, it makes me stronger and stronger in my faith. Losing something so key to him is clearly going to have a huge effect and naturally I hope he finds his faith again, but it is his choice.
Peter , London,
So upsetting, his faith in God took him to heights (or should I say lengths) previously unachieved and then he lost it.
He should question his faith, I just hope he comes up with the right answer. How do you know God exists? Romans 1:20
Matthew, Cardiff,
I have only just in the post-Beijing Euphoria heard about Jonathan's loss of faith. As a retired Anglican priest I'm probably impertinent to comment - but I'm not susprised when anyone reacts against a narrow fundamentalist evangelical background .- we may reject God, but his love never rejects us!
John Porter, Framecourt, France
My Christian beliefs have been constantly challenged in my 9 university years, e.g. when obtaining MSc in Physiology after quitting MBChB. My own complex partial epileptic seizures get rid of memories, & I think it's absolutely insulting to claim Christian beliefs are due to not questioning.
Stephen Mason, Aberdeen, Scotland
Jesus wept
My name is not important
Alan French, Beccles, uk
I am a born-again Christian and I am devastated by the news that Jonathan has lost his faith. But let us not lose hope - remember C S Lewis - he was raised in a Church-going family and then became an atheist and then later in his thirties, he came to CHRIST. Keep praying for Jonathan.
CIL, dagenham, United kingdom
I always thought Jonathan Edwards came across as someone screaming "look how humble I am". Now the same disposition to self-promotion takes the form of a more honest "look at me, now I don't even have to pretend to be humble". I hope he finds peace with God.
Thomas, Surrey, United Kingdom
When I was 16 I personally understood that there was no god and no higher point to existence other than to live as honestly and within what nature has made us. It doesn't make life any less beautiful that there is no creator. Welcome to the light Jonathon. It's a better place to be.
Stuart Tomanek, Nottingham, UK
Listened to your commentary, Jonathan, on the triple jump this afternoon and sadly reminded of your decision to reject the Christian faith and, with it, Jesus Himself. Can I ask whether you ever had the amazing experience described in Eph 1:13/14 - baptism in the Holy Spirit? Makes a difference!!!
mike shaw, bridgnorth, uk (england)
Fabulous! Great to see another human taking the 'red pill' after years of clouded vision. Enjoy the new, vivid landscape Jonathan
Tony Lacey, Mancehster, UK
I am honestly upset by Jonathan's rejection of his faith in Christ. It really saddens me that someone that has been strong enough to stand up and be counted as a Christian in this world can all of a sudden turn his back on it. Jonathan, God loves you, Christ died for you, don't deny Him His place.
Deborah Hughes, Warrington, UK
How very sad, that Edwards is only able to "deal" with his emotional crisis when retiring from sport, by denying the one certainty in life. I had never realised how shallow his faith obviously was. God please protect me from that self same shallowness..
Michael Ingram, Southampton, England
I became a Christian as a teenager not to know God or join a religion but because I knew I needed to love and be loved. I hope love might be eternal and that Jesus is the divine embodiment of love. We live only a few miles from JE. We live with many doubts too. Like to chat with JE.
Robert Forsythe, Prudhoe, UK
My own experience of losing faith was one of the most pleasurable and positive of my life. The realisation that there is no god allowed me to see the world in a far more intense and beautiful light. The world is a better place without god. Well done Mr Edwards.
Richard Mann, Norwich, England
I have just seen J.E.doing punditry for the Olympics .It was the first time in a number of years that I have seen him being interviewed .He came across completely differently than before. I have only just learned of his departure from his faith, after seeing this. I now fully believe in God..
Barry Jackson, ORPINGTON,
A person who's motive in life is to glorify God will not be bothered by loss of status. A true Christian is called to stop walking in pride. Then said Jesus unto his disciples "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me". We can't serve Jesus AND our ego.
Pauline, London, England
I examined my childhood faith whilst sharing a house with much loved atheist friends, and studying theology. My love for Jesus continues - 'Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20 v 29)
Jane, Stone, England
If the suggestion that Paul's conversion could be adequately explained by an epileptic fit could pave the way for JE's Christianity to unravel, sadly I fear that his 'faith' must've been more superficial optimism than genuine identity.
Jonathan Hopkins, Broomfield, USA
i have studied philosophy an science for years, i have had both sides of the argument and have read alot of books. I have absolutly no doubt in God what so ever and its not just general revelation and the stars in the sky that tell me this. Whatever hapens God loves jonathon and i will pray for him.
David, Bradford, England
Congratulations Jonathan, it takes a lot of courage to face such an awakening. It's far easier to bury doubts like others do, or chase away any thoughts that may lead to an open consideration of the facts.
Of course you don't become an Olympic champion being afraid to face realities !
Shaun W, San Diego, USA
If you knew God he can not stop existing to you no more than you or I could because he would be real.This man had religion not God. He never knew God. When you know someone you know they are real.He was never real to this guy but God's word never returns void and he acted out God's principles.
Emperess Walden, High Point, USA
Everyone here has faith.When our class wrote an opponent of ID - "do you agree that the simplest cell is more complex than our best computer?" He AGREED, and said, he had FAITH that the years of evolution were sufficient to create it!I I hope Jonathon exhibits such refreshing honesty in his search!
Don Ansley, Barrie, Canada
Faith or reason?
Jonathan Edwards chose reason and found the satisfaction and joy that comes through seeing the world as it rather than through the corrupting and destructive haze of religion. Well done.
I pity those who wish for him (or others) to travel back into the darkness of superstition.
Sam Centipedro, Shrewsbury, England
As a friend of his father and knowing him from his birth, I am extremely sad that Jonathan has “lost” his faith. I too admire his honesty and understand his need to be true to himself and others. But I am much sadder at the comments of those who congratulate him on being delivered from this delusion
Dick Luther, Dorchester, Dorset
Dear Jonathan,
You only have to look at creation to know we have a wonderful designer, if you believe that we come from a mushy soup sea you have only joined the majority who are not really seeing the holes in the evolutionary THEORY. Jonathan, what about the Holy Spirit, a living witness within you, have you no relationship with Jesus?
Where will your hope come from without Him?
God Bless You
Mike Foster, Rochester, England
Hi, I'd like to say congratulations on your records! However, I'd like to mention that it is completely normal to question if there is a God... However, at the same time how can you not relate what you have done to a being looking out for you, to me it seems that your skills are a gift from something other than your genetics and family... religion will always be a debated issue, but those times in your life when you feel like there is something with you, that there is something unexplainable guiding you and giving you warmth and passion for something... is in my opinion supernatural and heavenly... God has given my gifts, and I feel like i let him down and that he should not have faith in me, not the other way around.
however, good luck in your endeavors and may you find God again in your life, there will be some of us who pray for you, and some of us who want you to live an aethiest lifestyle... remember how you were raised and pray for that in your children as well! God bless...
Michael, Harrisonburg, VA
Welcome to the growing number of ex-christians. I, like you, was a born again believer before realising that it was all simply a fantasy.
Richard Dawkin's book "unweaving the rainbow" gives a wonderful view into the world of awe without recourse to the supernatural - it proved very helpful to me in solidifying my atheism.
Congratulations - what you have done requires strength and robustness of character. It's much easier to believe a fantasy than to stand on your own two feet.
Ian Lowe, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, UK
" What ever happened to the saying You must hit rock bottom before you reach the top"
I feel that you must realise that God's ways are perfect and when you hit rock bottom it is then that his glory will show. I mean how can you appreciate Money if you already have it? That's how I believe it is with God. You cannot fully appreciate what he does for you without losing what you have.
All of that stuff that you mentioned above are insignificant, they are worldly possesions that belong to this world so why not leave them in this world and concentrate on the supernatural world of God where anything is possible.
L Stevenson, London, United Kingdom
will keep you and your family in my prayers.
dave , glasgow,
Jonathan - Life is not pointless and we are not here by chance. I have sometimes thought and questioned but always found it difficult to accept that the world and it's occupants just came about by chance. I also believe God has answered prayers I have uttered in times of need. I would recommend a book if you wished to read it "Is God past his sell by date" by John Blanchard. Wishing you happiness.
Joanne, Magherafelt, N Ireland
Very sad to read that you've backed off from God. I think there will be a period where you find a 'liberty' of a kind, it's called 'unfamiliarity', it's new territory. Even the novelty of that will fade and the questions only God can begin to show an anwer to will come to the fore once again. Those with a stereotypical view that a God Squad is after you shows a childish take, founded upon a lack of real experience or understanding. I don't believe God has finished with you at all, just like the rest of us while we're still on this side of heaven. For those who have never expereinced God, go into a contemporary worship environment and just watch what happens.
Greig, Dunfermline, Scotland
Good for you Jonathan. Definitely better to assess what suits you than to "blindly" follow. Hope, belief or even faith is incredibly powerful, but one need not always link it to God. The fact that one questiosn the existence of God does not equate to one believing in big bang either.
arctanck, Reading, UK
Be careful now people. Dont offend any God squad members, you know they will come for you in the night.
Tom, London,
Why is it that the god squad must come out in force and cry to the heavens that dear Jonathan be saved?
Is it just me or is the feeling that their own belief somehow takes a hit from his lack of belief? As if their belief somehow gets better the more people buy into it? Insecure perhaps?
Well done Jonathan. You have shaken off the shackles of unquestioning ignorance and you have asked yourself the difficult questions without fear. I can only imagine the intimidation you will be recieving whether it be from friends, family or by random email, I am sure it is piling up.
DJ, ST ANDREWS,
Who created the big bang Jonathan?
Terence Dunne, Paddock Wood, UK
“If there is no God, does that mean that life has no purpose?" If there is no God (or at least something very much like a God) then how could the answer to the question be "no it does not mean that"? How could anything but the hollow chord of nihilism be the underlying harmony of reality? Attempts are made of course to fill the existential void with Humanistic exhaltations on the value of logic, science, reason, art, culture, even on that of base hedonism, and to claim that we as humans can somehow weave our own meaning from the tattered threads of an arbitrary and soulless world. That we can gain dignity through facing the harshest of ultimate realities with a Stoic equanimity.
But do we truly believe this, this greatest of all miracles? That we can get purpose from purposelessness, reason from irrationality, dignity from humiliation, and something from nothing? No we cannot: for we are claiming goods for which we are simply not entitled. If God's dead, so is Humanism.
Gawayn, Edinburgh, UK
There is a God Jonathan and you know it too, feel the force young skywalker....
mike, braintree, uk
For all you doubters, I have seen god on a number of occasions in the past and it was spectacular.
Unfortunately I don't see him too often now because he plays for Cardiff, however, Robbie Fowler is still god.
Richard , Jersey,
I recently read that the Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest known bible which was written some 350 years after jesus's death. Since then it has been edited and revised on a number of occasions by people with a political agenda - usually to control the ignorant masses.
The fact that people place their faith in a document which was written so long after the event sits uncomfortably with me.
It is like me writing a book about life in the 17th century without having any verfiable and reliable reference material to go on.
Richard , Jersey,
Jonathon, welcome to the Truth. There is no afterlife, no purpose to our existence. I hope this Revelation doesn't bother you, although I don't see why it should.
You were clearly the victim of religious brainwashing as a child and I am glad you have now seen the Light.
If you find you are having doubts, I recommend the works of St Dawkins. Available at all good bookshops.
Good luck and happiness with the rest of your life.
colin, london, england
"What gives me hope is that he has many close Christian friends and family who will be there to support him during this time of reflection. "
They wont they'll shun him and treat him like dirt, no matter a good of a man he is. They always do
John, orlando,
It takes far more faith to be an atheist than any other rfaith in religion. To accept were just an accident and still find joy takes faith!!!
If you look at the whole picture of science and rationality it would seem illogical to believe that there is not a God?
I hope Jonathan Edwards finds God again.
Did you know that you cannot define, symbolise Christianity No other religion has this simple concept To define what a Christian believes in you must not read but se with your eyes and heart, a man dying on a cross. Why? = LOVE = The meaning of life and the reason for all you may experience or ask questioins about.
My crisis of faith nearly killed me But I have faith its simple
Gently does it
Dave Mc Gee
Dave Mc Gee, Coventry, West Midlands, UK
It appears the loveable Jonathan was never really a Christian just a church-goer,bought up in a christian circle, who at the time agreed with the christain 'religion'.
However real christianity is not about a conformity, church attendance or religious practices.It's about a personel relationship with Jesus Christ, once you experience His divine love & prescence in your life, it's not something you can deny nor would decide to forsake at any cost.
So dont be suprised unfortunetly Jonathan never lost God as he hasn't yet found Him!
Steve Kiernan, London, England
I'm very late to this but I'd like to comment anyway. I'm sure I am not the only reader of the article to find the majority of the "Christian" comments, however well meaning, to be pompous and self-righteous hectoring.
As the atheist son of a Jewish/atheist father and a C of E /agnostic mother I would like to give my warmest congratulations to Mr Edwards for being courageous enough to question his faith. Faith is by definition belief without evidence. He found his faith to be unsupported and unsupportable. Good for him. Now he can discover the world and be responsible for his own thoughts and actions. As the late and much loved physicist Richard P Feynman intimated, the Universe is far to big a stage for god's tiny human-centred drama.
PV, Treviso, Italy
Referring to Patrick O'Lunaigh's comments regarding religious belief correlating to a low IQ, it might be worth considering Einstein's views on the existence of a divine creator.
I wasn't aware Einstein was renowned for being unintelligent.
Mike Nightingale, Southampton,
Good man, Jonathan. Honesty is the best policy - a Christian virtue. I too lost my faith several times. On one occasion it took me 3 years of philosophising and prayer to find Him again. The reward of a God more loving than the one I knew before always met me. There's no end to our learning about Him. Thank God I never closed my mind to the possibility of finding God again - a willingness to suspend disbelief. Not to worry - it's always God who finds us, never the other way around. He never leaves you, always loves.
Pete Manderson, Ipswich, Suffolk
Patrick,
I think you shoulud say 'low IQ' rather than 'lower IQ'. Otherwise, you're relating a positive to a comparative, which is inconsistent.
A Christian, romford, essex
In the context of studies that appear to show a correlation between religious belief and lower IQ, it's interesting to note the generally poor spelling and grammar in the posts from Christian contributors.
Patrick O'Lunaigh, London, UK
As a fellow ex-christian myself I was encouraged to read this - I'm obviously in good company! It is amusing to read viewpoints from Christians, but when you're hanging on to something so silly you have to come up with a 'reason' other than common sense as to why someone is no longer a Christian. Well done Jonathan!
Andy Bowker, Leeds, West Yorkshire,
I just got to read the Jonathan edwards story today November 2, 2007,and if i say iam shocked i must say that is an understatement because i never in my wildest drean thought that this has happened to a man i just told someone sonetime ago i love just because he refused to jumped on sunday. I don't know what I can say, but I know that it is the work of the evil one-satan. But in all thing I know that God in his mercy will help Edwards, he will see the light soon, he will not die a backslidder in jesus name.
I will be glad if I ever get a link to Mr edwards, i certainly will.
Olusoji Olukayode from nigeria
olusoji olukayode, Lagos, Nigeria
I believe there is a sun, even when I can't see it shining.
I believe in love, though I don't always feel it.
And I believe in God even when I can't see His face.
A change of life style often leads to the questioning of faith, I have questioned God myself when in diffucult siuations. But evey time I let Jesus reign in my life, his prescence is made obvious to me. Questioning God is not always bad. But in doing so, keep your mind and heart open for the possibility that God is real and has a plan for you.
I pray that Mr Edwards will keep his heart open to the possibility of God.
In Christ's Love,
Em, GF, Canada
If you notice that Johnathans loss of faith came when in this world he started to gain success and with it wealth. Jesus said "What does it profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and lose his own soul" Johnathan has gained the world and if is soul "is" lost then it is something he will have to face when he stands before the Lord at the Judgement. Paul also calls it a race that we all must run "Those who ENDURETH to the END shall be SAVED.This is not salvation by works but those who will have endured to the end shows that their salvation WAS TRUE NOT FALSE.
frank keefe, pontypool, united kingdom
Well, I have only just found this article...and am so impressed with everything he has to say, and am completely rethinking all the negative thoughts I had about J. Edwards in the past. He is a man who can think for himself and has cast off the shackles of his misguided brainwashing upbringing. Well done! I am respecting him at this moment than I ever did for the silly jumping thing he did. Welcome to intelligent thought and freedom from dogma.
JAN TREWIN, Hereford, UK
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (NASB)
The stepsof downgrade and backsliding are subtle and often done in small steps. First JE took an admirable stand by refusing to compete on the sabbath. Then he started to compete on the sabbath. Unfortunately, much of current evangelicalism is effeminate and feelings based, comtemporary Anglicanism glories in doubt as if it the apex of reason. Its not. No doubt JE would have be influenced by this subjective mind set.
We do hope that God may grant JE repentence as final apostasy will result in a stricter judgement for him. May the TIMES allow me to exercise my freedom of speech a freedom won by those grim ironsides who watch word was Holy Writ) and use the expression'a hotter place in hell'
Michael Greenway, Kingston, England
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed!
First the upholding of the sabbath then he started competing on the sabbath, the backsliding is subtle and the regress graduel. I pray that Jonathan will come back to God with deep aand heartfelt repentence. However, he must be warned that final apostasy will lead to a hotter place in hell!
Mike, Kingston, England
This must be a difficult and perhaps frightning time for those close to Jonathan, his family and friends, those who love him and for whom the change in him may be bewildering; but there are hidden depths to the Christian faith which are often only stumbled upon when initial faith falls away. Christianity is about life, life with all its dilemmas and struggles, pleasures and laughter, problems, enigmas and losses. Sometimes when one kind of faith dies it begins to pave the way for something new, something deeper, something dare I say with more honesty and compexity. There is a famous Old Testament story where Abraham's grandson Jacob is invited to begin a life of wrestling with God and the world. This may be the beginning of a new kind of faith, as yet unseen, for Jonathan and those near him. Following God is a matter of one day at a time, one mistake at a time, one encounter at a time. May Jonathan and his family be encouraged to keep going in their journey.
Dave Hopwood, Lynton,
Dear Dominic - you are the only one who seems to believe in the flying spaghetti monster - does that answer your question? And before you go on to argue that the number of people who believe in something isn't the measure of it's truth - I would agree with this. However, there is so much historical, archaeological and indeed scientific evidence to back up Christianity's claim that you really should be more honest with yourself. You simply don't want to look honestly at Christianity - now why is that? Is is experience or lifestyle choice?
Kirk, Belfast,
In a situation like this it is always best to go deconstruct and build again... to "Start With Basics". As long as Jonathon Edwards is open minded towards finding and accepting absolute truth, I personally don't see this 'crisis of faith' as a problem; not while there are many following and believing blindly. It is always good to ask questions.
Elizabeth Young, London, United Kingdom.
It is sad to read this report but, of course, the truth and validity of the Christian faith is fortunately not dependent upon the profession of faith and subsequent apparent departure from faith of someone 'famous' like Jonathan Edwards.
I have no reason to doubt that Jonathan Edwards' profession as a Christian was a genuine one. I wonder, however, whether in his pursuit of a very fine athletics career he lost sight of his true identity in Christ and became focused solely upon his identity as a world record triple jumper. There are many professing Christians who have lost their way because of a pursuit that, while commendable in itself, become a 'god' which supplanted God Himself in their lives.
One only has to consider the life (and death) of someone like Eric Liddell who, fine athlete though he was, never lost sight of the fact that his identity in Christ was more important than anything else this world could offer. There couldn't be a better counter balance to this report.
Alan, Glasgow,
Sirs
a) According to the report Jonathan Edwards is an agnostic NOT an atheist
b) his experience of 'faith' actually ISNT very biblical, there are big holes in these reported experiences. ie "I invited Jesus into my heart" is NOT the true experience of a true follower of Christ.
therefore, there is a strong suggestion that although 'religious' (Jesus never preached religion) Mr Edwards wasnt truly saved.
It IS a sad comment that churches have fallen to think that a person is in a certain condition without checknig the truth of their faith.
This is a complex issue, esp. for non-believers, but "My sheep know my voice" its about personal relationship with Jesus Christ and His work. This is still not in dispute.
Mr Edwards deserves our prayers and some help to possibly sort a diificult problem that the stardom has thrown up (or the ramifications of stopping that artificial life)
Basically, there is only 1 name in by which we must be saved, only 1 life that gives us
S Everett, Istanbul,
Hello David, And thank you for your comments.
Your objections again seem focused on Premise 2.
You question whether space & time came into being at the moment of the big bang. But, according to Hawking, 'Almost everyone now believes that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang', so my premise is not exactly controversial. And the burden of proof lies with you if you want to contradict the general consensus of today's astrophysical cosmology.
You then say it's only on the basis of our measurements of visible matter that the is insufficiently dense to collapse. True. But for a collapse to be feasible, physicists reckon that 99% of all the universe's matter would have to be invisible. Sandage refers to this as 'a bizarre requirement'. The term 'ad hoc' also springs to mind!
The 'fine tuning' argument is a separate issue, which I'd prefer to address in a separate post. But, for the moment, how do you feel about my defense of Premise 2?
james bejon, romford, essex
I've just sharply been reminded at what this article is all about
1. Athlete becomes famous for being a God-Botherer.
2. Athlete becomes famous for actually being rather good, most of us try to ignore the God-Bothering aspect as to a thinking person its pretty hard to take a botherer seriously.
3. Athlete famously recants - normal people think "about time", the other botherers get all hot and well . . . . bothered.
The comments may look to he uninitiated as rather bizarre
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
James,
Some interesting points you make... my comments:
1) Space and time doesn't need to have come into existence at the big bang... since we can't tell whether or not this is correct (as we can't confirm or deny what was before) we would be both intellectually dishonest in claiming any certainty either way.
2) It is considered that the current VISIBLE universe is not dense enough to collapse, this doesn't hinder the many theories of dark matter etc, that contribute to a more massive and dense universe.
3) Also I am not ruling out the possibility that every collapse and subsequent rebirth spans a new set of constants affecting the laws that govern physics etc.
4) The fact that the current universe is 'fine tuned' to exist now is no evidence that previous universes existed that weren't.
David, London, UK
Dear Dominic,
You say that my argument can be used to prove the existence of 'anything that can be imagined and [isn't disprovable]'. Not at all. What my argument proves is the existence of a creator of the universe. It couldn't be used to prove the existence of, say, Marley's ghost, unless you wanted to argue that Marley's ghost created the universe, but in that case you'd have to accept my argument for a Creator and then supplement it with a further argument identifying the universe's Creator with Marley's ghost.
In other words, you're right if your point is that my argument only gets me as far as an indeterminate creator. I'd need to provide further arguments to identify this creator with the God of the Bible (which I'm happy to do if we're agreed on where we've got to so far). But just saying things like 'This Creator could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster does nothing to disprove the conclusion as far as it goes.
james bejon, romford, essex
Dear Dominic, You say my argument can be used to prove the existence of 'anything that can be imagined and [isn't disprovable]'. Not at all. What my argument proves is the existence of a creator of the universe. So it clearly couldn't be used to prove the existence of, say, Marley's ghost -- unless, that is, you wanted to argue that Marley's ghost created the universe -- but in that case you'd be accepting my argument for a creator & then seeking to supplement it with a further argument identifying the universe's creator with Marley's ghost). In other words, you're right if your point is that my argument only gets me as far as an indeterminate creator. Further arguments would be needed to identify this creator with the God of the Bible (which I'm happy to venture forth if we're agreed on where we've got to so far). But just saying things like 'The Creator could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster' does nothing to disprove the conclusion of my argument as far as it goes.
james bejon, romford, essex
PeterB ::
Sorry but you cannot simply grasp certainties from thin air and claim that somehow they are evidence of themselves, that's just a circular argument.
Wher did your god come from ? Simply asserting that its "outside the rules" blah blah blah "cannot be comprehended" blah blah blah is special pleading and explains nothing. To quote Karl Popper "A theory that explains everything explains nothing".
There is a general sloppiness in the thinking that surrounds the "Universe fine tuning" argument that also strikes me about the Anthropic principles, they are simple circular arguments. They seem to spring from the wholly insane idea that the universe is here solely for our benefit. As I explain earlier imagine you are dealt 10 playing cards, you look at them and declare that the odds of being dealt those particular cards is so remote that it cannot be chance, indeed there must be some designed aspect about the setup of the universe that led to those cards being dealt. That's mad.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
Dominic
A miracle (or magic) can be defined as a phenomenon which is inconsistent with the physical laws of nature
God as intelligent designer was able to select and equip our universe at its formation with a very specific set of physical laws which were crucial for the development of stars and planets and for the evolution of mankind. Therefore it is not irrational to conclude that he is also capable of momentarily altering those physical laws at will to create phenomena which you may call magic but what I prefer to call miracles, examples of which are present throughout the Bible
Mankind is the product of a very specific set of physical laws which form the framework of his reality. But if a narrow set of physical laws governs the existence of mankind, then it follows that there must exist a broader spectrum of physical laws from which the discrete set favourable to mankind was selected. What we call magic may just be a momentary manifestation from within the broader spectrum.
PeterB, Lincoln,
PerterB: Did the old testament predict Jesus? Or do you think it more likely that Jesus chose to try and fulfil the scriptures?
Matthew 21:5-7 seems pretty clear that Jesus had every idea he was trying to act according to the well known prophesies and give himself a greater legitimately...
"All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet"
David, London, UK
PeterB - Your claim
"is that as our technological powers of cosmological observation improve, the more we begin to identify space-time phenomena which are consistent with the God of the Bible"
Is not falling on deaf ears, its simply incorrect, there's a difference.
I have given you several chances to give an example of when magic turned out to be the explanation for anything, you have failed.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
The Bible consists of genuine historical writings. However due to the godless philosophies developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, culminating in the murderous atheist regimes of the 20th century, we now have a secular humanist society that largely regards the Bible as irrelevant.
It is little known that the Old Testament actually predicted the life of Christ as described in the New Testament. The writings are genuine, and available for all to read. So if the Bible predicted historical fact over centuries, it cannot be dismissed outright by atheists as farfetched nonsense.
Unlike ridiculous examples of improbability borrowed from well-known atheists, God Himself has been described in genuine historical writings thousands of years ago.
What is uncanny - and it seems that my point is falling on deaf ears - is that as our technological powers of cosmological observation improve, the more we begin to identify space-time phenomena which are consistent with the God of the Bible.
PeterB, Lincoln,
Dear David,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
You say my argument doesn't prove an INTELLIGENT creator. True. This requires a separate argument based on the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.
But, in terms of what the argument DOES cover, what you seem to object to isn't the CONCLUSION (since once you accept that the 'big bang' represents the moment at which space & time first came into existence, it follows that the bang's cause can't itself be another space-time universe), but rather Premise 2 -- i.e. you postulate an eternally oscillating universe which never actually BEGAN to exist.
However there are problems with this view. Firstly, there is no known physics that would reverse the collapse of a prior universe. And, secondly, the density of the current universe suggests it will never stop expanding.
So whilst I'd agree that your theory is as 'understandable' and 'possible' as the God hypothesis, I'd question whether it was as 'probable'.
james bejon, romford, essex
James : You can't claim that because something cannot be disproved that it is any evidence whatever for that proposition, in the absence of any other evidence, magic is invariably revoked.
The problem with this approach is that it follows from this that anything that can be imagined and not disproved is equally true.
These imaginary entities can be given all sorts of special powers by simple application of your idea that they exist outside of time, space, HP Sauce, whatever you specify. As you can see not a shred of positive evidence has been provided. If you say that an ancient work of fiction is evidence, I will say that OK so is "Metamorphoses" by Ovid.
If you say miracles are evidence, I'd say fine prove it and collect James Randi's $1 Million prize that exists for this purpose.
You want to believe something so strongly that your standard of proof is virtually non-existent. Would you apply the same rules if you were serving on a Jury? I hope not.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
Since the universe is reckoned to have started from a singularity of time and space resulting in no possibility of measuring or discovering what came before, there is no way we will ever KNOW what was the cause.
All that is left is to argue philosophically about the possibilities. Even as an Atheist I can see some sense in the two premises of James B. however inevitably there is the usual religious leap of faith to decide on an intelligent designer being the cause (eg where is the evidence the designer even has to be intelligent - perhaps God is dumb, bungling fool that accidentally initiated the big bang and is now watching in dumb stupefaction?!)
My own little pet theory, which I have no belief in as it is without evidence, but like to throw around occasionally, is that what might have preceded this universe was another one that collapsed? An infinite line of universes is just as understandable, possible and probable as a timeless God.
David, London, UK
Dear Dominic,
I hope you won't think me presumptuous in trying to challenge your presuppositions, but it seems to me that, in our exchanges to date, your starting point has been that it's impossible, even in principle, to use logic to come to the conclusion that God exists (we'll call this 'Claim A'), and that the rest of your thinking follows from there.
But Claim A requires justification (and if it's true, then you can't use logic to conclude that God DOESN'T exist either, so your arguments tend towards self-refutation).
Moreover, you've been presented with an argument for God's existence, and the way to disprove it is to engage with it.
I push this point not in the hope of winning an argument, but in the hope that you'll become open to the claim that this universe has a Creator, who loves you dearly. Looking at the world's ills, this can seem hard to believe at times. But God may have reasons for allowing our suffering, and if you seek Him, He'll reveal Himself to you.
james bejon, romford, essex
Dear Dominic,
Please let me sum up where I think we've got to thus far (to provide some kind of log of the ground we've covered).
So far, I don't see that you've offered any real refutation of the 3 specific steps of my argument. Instead, you've argued that the conclusion 'God exists' is invalid in itself, no matter how convincing the supporting arguments are. You claim:
a] that God's existing timelessly is illogical (but you state this without justification, and I provide counter-examples)
b] that Occam's razor disallows my drawing the conclusion that God exists (however this is a mis-application, as I show below - if the post appears!)
c] that the FSM can also be proven (however, as I point out, this only calls into question the NATURE of 'god', so is irrelevant until you accept the argument that a timeless, immaterial Creator indeed exists) and
d] that my lottery analogy is fallacious (however I refute this below, & it is moot to the positive argument anyway)
james bejon, romford, essex
Dear Dominic,
Thank you for your continued interest.
You say I can't claim that 'god is not an entity'. Fine. I don't. All I deny is that god is a complex entity.
Next, you imply that the statement 'God is timeless' is illogical. This requires justification. What is illogical about the idea of something's existing outside of time? Philosophers routinely refer to things existing timelessly, e.g. numbers.
(Please see my post below regarding the FSM and 'lottery fallacy').
Regarding Occam's razor: the razor is not a blanket embargo against the existence of other entities (or we'd be forced into solipsism). Rather, it decides between competing explanations that account for a given body of evidence equally well. What, then, is your competing explanation for the existence of the universe?
In closing, however, I want to repeat my call for you to engage with the argument I've given. What is it that you deny? Premise 1, Premise 2, or that the conclusion then follows?
james bejon, romford, essex
PeterB : You have built a magic castle of sand on top of dogma - excellent. Is there any chance of seeing your proof of why this could not have all been done by the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Your idea that scientists are "trying frantically" to disprove the Big Bang is simply hilariious, any cosmologist who says that the big bang theory is not the best one we have would be regarded as perfectly entitled to make that claim (its science, not dogma) after all) but would be invited to explain issues such as the 4K background radiation, Hubble's Law and the spatial configuration of the Universe.
There is one thing however a Big Bang does nothing at all to suggest - this is the presence of a mythical being that created it by magical, unexplained means, Occam's Razor sees to that even if you don't have the common sense to see that directly.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
James : You haven't understood the lottery issue at all - I suggest you look it up, what you are saying is a classic fallacy. To demonstrate what you are saying : imagine you are playing a game of cards that involves being dealt 7 cards - the odds of being dealt the 7 cards you have been (whatever they are) is so remote that something very strange must be going on. Can you see the problem now? You are assigning undue weight to something that is just normal probability.
I am as open to the possibility of a miracle as I am to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Proof of a miracle would involve repeatability, scientific review and no possible explanation wihin the known laws of physics and no possible fit with any conceivable naturalistic explanation. The whole "Extraordinary claims. . . . " thing uses everyday English in such an ordinary way that I feel that we have a fundamental difference in how we see language even.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
The recent discovery of dark energy is further evidence that the universe is expanding in a manner consistent with its origin in the big bang, prior to which event space and time did not exist. Scientists are frantically trying to prove the opposite - that the
universe had no beginning - but the evidence in favour of the big bang just keeps mounting as our observational technology improves. This isn't magic, it's science. and it leads to some conclusions:
It is impossible that the conditions which gave rise to the formation of the universe developed at random because to do so they would need the medium of time and time did not exist.
If the universe was not formed at random, it is impossible that it could have been formed in any way other than by an intelligent designer. If the intelligent designer created time and space, it is impossible to conclude that he is bound by time and space.If the designer is not bound by time, it is impossible to claim he has an origin or a cause.
PeterB, Lincoln,
James: Your logic is flawed again - you can't have any logical argument that stands up which makes calls to magic as the "god is timeless, god is not an entity" stuff does.
Occam's razor is always valid, what you are doing is called "special pleading" - look it up.
The "logic" of your argument is dismantled above and in my previous posts. Have you come to terms with your misunderstanding of the lottery fallacy yet ?
You don't seem to have any answer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster which by an incredible coincidence is also timeless and beyond rational analysis.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
Dear Dominic,
You talk of 'an incredibly complex entity springing from nothing'. But this is irrelevant to my argument, since:
a] whilst God's thoughts & actions may be deemed incredibly complex, God, as such, is not a complex ENTITY (which is what Occam's razor is about); and
b] I never argued that God 'sprang from nothing'. Rather, I argued that God exists timeless -- i.e. eternally -- meaning there was no point in time at which God BEGAN to exist.
But moreover -- and as I said in my initial presentation of the argument -- if you don't like the conclusion that God exists, you have to dispute either the premises or logic of my argument, and your response does neither.
You bring up the FSM. Granted, my argument doesn't get us as far as the God of the Bible. For that, we'll have to examine the claims of the gospels. But one thing at time.
For now, please tell me what your objection is: that my premises are invalid? or that the logic is invalid?
james bejon, romford, essex
Dear Dominic,
In my last post, I claimed that the principle 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is contravened every week by lottery winners. In response, you say that given the size of the UK's population, someone's bound to win. True, but when people hear their numbers read out over the news, what amazes them isn't that SOMEBODY won - it's that THEY won! Nor do I involve God in this illustration.
You then claim 'something should only be accepted as a miracle if the alternatives are more miraculous'. By 'more miraculous', I assume you mean 'less likely'. But how do you assess the likelihood of a miracle?
I think we're closer to what you mean when you say 'there are always more convincing explanations' for something than miraculous ones. What this seems to mean in practice is that no matter how convincing the evidence, you won't admit a miracle. But why? If you're really interested in the truth, why not at least be open to the possibility of miracles?
james bejon, romford, essex
Peter B : Anyone who says anything is "fundamentally flawed" then proceeds to insist that it was all magic has a severe lack of irony going on. I repeat the question I have asked twice now I believe : Has anything ever been explained by magic ?
Also who designed your intelligent designer ? Surely if something of incredible complexity can come from nothing, then so can anything else - Jeff The God of Biscuits, Simon the God of Hairdos etc
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
PeterB - I missed this staggering piece of misunderstanding of yours
"Evolution is a gradual development over time and time did not exist prior to the big bang. Therefore nothing could have evolved before the big bang"
Has anyone ever asserted that evolution took place before self-replicating molecules existed ? This could only be asserted by someone who fails to understand - well anything really.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
James - Isn't that just a rehash of the Thomas Aquinas "first mover" "proofs" ? They may have impressed in the 13th century but they're pretty sad now.
Its far more improbable that an incredibly complex entity sprang from nothing then created everything from nothing than it is if using Occam's Razor you simply remove the incredibly complex entity.
Secondly - it is just as strong "evidence" for The Flying Spaghetti Monster existng and creating everything basd on small vibrating noodles known as "strings".
If you think what you have come up with proves anything except very shoddy logic then I'm afraid you are mistaken.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
According to the rational atheist, the singularity that preceded the big bang which brought the universe (and space and time) into being, was more likely to have evolved at random than be the product of an intelligent designer.
This reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
Evolution is a gradual development over time and time did not exist prior to the big bang. Therefore nothing could have evolved before the big bang.
The only possible explanation is that the singularity at the beginning of the universe was the product of an intelligent designer and that the intelligent designer exists outside time and space. I prefer to call Him God.
PeterB, Lincoln,
As an atheist I am so pleased and I admit it, smug. Once the born agains and alpha folk extend their tentacles into your life you may as well give them your pin code and car keys as your life now belongs to them. I'm proud to be an atheist and am proud of any former narrow minded thinker to set themselves free from doctrine.
Andrew , Burnopfield, UK
Dear Dominic & Barry,
I don't think theistic arguments need be as empty as you make out. Take the following example:
1) Everything that begins to exist requires a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore the universe has a cause
This argument consists of 2 premises (both of which are plausible), and a conclusion (that follows logically).
And once you accept the conclusion that the universe has a cause, it follows that this cause must be spaceless (since it brought space into being), timeless (since it brought time into being), and personal (since, otherwise, its effects would exist timelessly). You're then left with a cause of the universe that sounds remarkably like God.
The point? Believers don't just have to blindly assert God's existence. The above argument relies on 2 premises - which are religiously neutral statements - and the conclusion then follows logically. If you don't happen to like the conclusion, you have to dispute the premises or logic.
james bejon, romford, essex
Brenda - quoting from a book of ancient fairy tales is the surest way I know to get someone like myself rolling my eyes. Have you ever stopped to consider that a book such as Ovid's Metamorphoses, equally old and with the credibility of being written by one man in one go (not tweaked ad infinitum over hundreds of years) is a more believeable source ?
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
PS Alan -- I've just realised that black swans do, in fact, exist! But hopefully you get the point. Ornithology isn't exactly my strong point. Though, having said that, I'm not sure what is...
james bejon, romford, essex
Dear Alan,
Please allow me to respond to some of the points you've made.
You say the claim 'God exists' is unprovable. An example of an argument for God's existence should soon appear on this page -- which you'll then be able to comment on. But, as you'll see, the argument shows it's at least possible to prove that God exists.
You then liken the claim 'God exists' to the claim 'All swans are white'. But this is a false analogy. The claim 'all swans are white' is a universal claim (whereas the claim 'God exists' is singular). In any case, we have good reason to believe that all swans are white on a probabilistic basis. It may not be a mathematical proof, but, at the very least, it's more likely than its negation.
Finally, you define an atheist as someone who 'merely says they do not believe there is a god'. But an agnostic can say as much, hence my claim that this is just agnosticism (please see below), as it still leaves open the question of God's existence.
james bejon, romford, essex
James Bejon - If you define a triangle as a three-sided figure, then it doesn't have to be proved. Neither is the statement that earth is not flat a theory but a statement of observable fact, like saying "this table is round". Strictly speaking, "God exists" is also not a theory, but simply an unprovable claim, like "the spaghetti monster exists". This has nothing to do with theories. - So let's take the well-known theory "all swans are white". You can observe as many white swans as you like, but you can't PROVE the theory. However just one black swan is enough to falsify the theory. That, James, is how theories work, logically. - Incidentally, your dictionary is wrong. It is incorrect to say that "atheists BELIEVE there is no god", No, "atheists (if they are entirely logical) merely say they DO NOT BELIEVE there is a god". Notice the subtle difference?
alan, cologne,
God made mankind upright,
but men have gone in search of many schemes.
I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.
As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed in a mother's womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things
Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the wheel broken at the well,
***Ecclesiastes***
Brenda M Solares, Los Angeles, CA
James : The "lottery falllacy" - how amusing - the odds are known - approx 13.9 million to 1 against any one line matching the winning set of balls - remind me of the population of the UK again ?
The problem you have with using odds in the case of mythical entities is that by definition the odds are infinity to one against - not terribly clever.
I did post an explanation of the origin of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but it hasn't been published here - it comes originally from the philosopher David Hume who pointed out that something should only be accepted as a miracle if the only alternatives were even more miraculous. Given that most events recorded by humans are subject to mistaken beliefs and lack of knowledge, these are always more convincing explanations.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
Jonathan, don't lose your faith over thoughts that things are going as well as they used to. There is always another factor and things turn out different ways for reasons, sometimes which might not seem obvious at first. I always admired you for your faith and I hope you can come through this tough phase.
David, Glasgow,
I think it is very important for other Christians who are reading this to unite together and pray for people who backslide.
Some Christians when they retire feel like they lose an identity (that being sport/work/position), but what they don't see due to an unclear mind is that their identity was always God.
Proverbs 3:5 says ' Trust in the Lord God with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding'
Everyone has doubts about life, situations, human nature makes us insecure and always looking for answers, what people don't realise is that God puts Christians to the test, some people fail at the first hurdle but God can only pick them up and help them along if they want to.
I could talk all day about spiritual attacks but I suppose the important thing for me about this article about the person but rather to offer support and prayer to those who read and might fall into the trap
Darren Nixon, Newtownards, Northern Ireland
Quantum theories which seek to prove that the universe had no beginning are being pursued vigorously. However observations continue to show that the universe is still expanding at a rate consistent with the big bang. So we must accept, however grudgingly, that space and time had a beginning and that before that event they did not exist. So whatever conditions brought the universe into being, whether they be random or intentional, these conditions or causes must exist outside space and time.
Historical writings tell us that God the creator of the universe exists outside space and time. Is this a coincidence?
PeterB, Lincoln,
I can't believe atheists can't accept that the best explanation for life the universe and everything is a badly compiled book of bronze age mythology.
These arrogant fundamentalist heathens have the audacity to ask for any shed of evidence to verify that ancient superstitions are true and furthermore go as far as accepting the masses of demonstrable facts that conflict with biblical accounts of how things happened.
What is the world coming to? Can atheism explain where I lost my keys? No I didn't think so, but God could, ergo God exists.
Barry, Newbury,
Good on Edwards. He's done the right thing by being honest. I sincerely hope that if he finds some sort of faith again, it will be based on his own decisions, not on what was stamped into his brain from the time he was born. And if he should not, that's fine too. I hope his Christian friends will not leave him over that - a good friendship is not worth throwing away over religious differences. I also hope they do not see this as a chance to try and bring him back to the flock, with no regard for what he thinks or believes.
EAD, New Haven,
PeterB : To summarise then - the creation of the universe is so improbable that it must be magic. Could you point me at any phenomena that was once a mystery but has since been solved by an explanation that it was magic ?
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
Dear Dominic,
Allow me to comment on your response.
You say a negative can't be proven. This is a strange claim (and, worse still, a self-refuting one, since it seeks to prove a negative itself). In any case, what about statements like: 'There are no 4-sided triangles' or 'The earth is not flat'? Aren't these provable negatives?
Regarding my definition of atheism, dictionary.com tells me atheism is 'the doctrine or belief that there is no God'. Do you define the term otherwise? If so, how? You say an atheist 'requires positive evidence' to believe in God; but, on this definition, I'm an atheist as well!
Finally, you say 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I'm not sure what this means. If 'extraordinary' means unlikely, I don't see any reason to believe you -- after all, people believe they've won the lottery on the basis of fairly routine broadcasts. And if 'extraordinary' means supernatural, what would class as an extraordinary experience?
james bejon, romford, essex
The fundamental argument of the rational atheist is based on probabilities:
That the universe occurred at random is less improbable than the occurrence at random of a God who made it.
A creator would have to be more complex than the created and it is less likely that a more complex thing will occur at random than a less complex thing.
Therefore, unlikely as it may be that the universe originated at random, the origin of a complex God who made it is even less likely.
The above reasoning is flawed.
Space and time only began with the formation of the universe, and therefore the cause of the universe (which I will call God) must have existed beyond space and time. God is outside time and therefore can have no origin or cause, and is outside space and therefore can have no material complexity.
Therefore the atheist cannot rely on the complexity-related improbabilities of God's origin as a justification for favouring the less improbable random formation of the universe.
PeterB, Lincoln, Lincs
Dominic Shields says
' A rational atheist as I would describe it also doesn't remotely see why anything needs to be worshipped, real or imaginary. '
This is because a rational athiest (or any unbeliever) doesn't want to. They have a bias against God and don't want any moral accountabilty towards Him. This is the biblical view.
Why don't you seriously seek God?
David, Wirral, England
Dear Dominic,
Allow me to comment on your thoughtful response.
You claim that a negative cannot be proven. This seems a strange claim (and, worse still, a self-refuting one, since it seeks to prove a negative itself). Anyway, what about statements like: 'There are no 4-sided triangles' or 'The earth isn't flat'. Aren't these provable negatives?
Regarding my definition of atheism, dictionary.com tells me that atheism is 'the doctrine or belief that there is no God'. Do you define it otherwise? If so, how? You say an atheist 'requires positive evidence' to believe in God. Fine, but I am an atheist on this definition!
You say that 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I am not sure what this means. If 'extraordinary' means unlikely, I don't see any reason to agree (after all, people believe they've won the lottery on the basis of fairly routine reports). And if 'extraordinary' means supernatural, then what classes as an 'extraordinary' experience?
james bejon, romford, essex
Ryan says, as do many, "Religious activity can neither save nor satisfy. Empty tradition can't. If it's just a show on the outside, then you're gonna feel empty pretty soon. Only God can save. Only a relationship with the living God through Christ can save and bring utter fulfilment and joy."
I'd agree that empty tradition can't save. You're quick blaming this deconversion on emptiness.
How do you deduce that it has to be Christ? Why not Allah, or Brahman, or one of the others? Or how about following Buddha, or just working it out as a secular humanist? Maybe religion is like sports psychology. Different brands suit different people.
How someone can deduce from some feelings they get, or looking at a flower, that everything in the bible is true and all the similar experiences that others have based on different holy books or no holy books are wrong?
I wish Mr Edwards well with whatever he discovers in life.
Richard, Leeds, UK
ALL HAIL ZEUS AND ARES, THEY SHALL SMITE YOUR PUNY GOD AND DROWN THE WORLD IN MEAD AND WINE.
Seriously, how will praying to the gods of antiquity differ to the worship of boring ol'jehova/allah?
Bring back the old greek gods in my opinion, I'll buy a bottle of blue nun for dionysus then go to an orgy, followed by a brief war with the persians, it will be brilliant! All atheists invited because the greek gods aint' picky.
George K, West Drayton, UK
To all those athiests who really want absolute proof that God exists - why don't you try seriously praying to Him - then He might even answer you.
Jeremiah 29:13 'You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.'
David, Wirral, England
Hmmm... There for the lack of god go I.
Matt Wallace, AKA The Compleat Heretic, Greensboro, NC, USA
James - Romford - you say "Atheism tends to be the stronger claim that 'There is no God', which requires demonstration. "
This is the classic logical error that plagues these debates, as you probably know any book on logic will say the exact opposite as you are asking that a negative be proved (see The Flying Spaghetti Monster).
I think your definition of atheist is also wrong - an agnostic doesn't know so keeps what they would call an open mind. An atheist requires positive evidence to accept something and to paraphrase someone else "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A rational atheist as I would describe it also doesn't remotely see why anything needs to be worshipped, real or imaginary.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
David,
Thank you for your response. I'd like to come back to you on some of it.
You say atheism is 'an absence of belief'. But I think this is just agnosticism, since an absence of belief still leaves open the question as to whether God exists. Atheism tends to be the stronger claim that 'There is no God', which requires demonstration.
Your claim that the universe has always existed is fairly radical, since it contradicts almost every modern-day textbook on astrophysical cosmology (to say nothing of the deep philosophical problems involved with having an infinite past). If atheism relies on such claims, it is on shaky ground.
You then claim that morals are 'arbitrary'. Do you really mean this? This would mean there was nothing objectively wrong with what Hitler did. His view of morality was just 'different' from other people's, but no better or worse. Is this what you believe?
You finally claim that religious belief is, by definition, irrational. On what/whose definition?
james bejon, romford, essex
Chris Westbrook
Bad idea to use the writings of Tacitus and Josephus as proof of Jesus' divinity. You ask if they wrote porkies; unfortunately they did! Josephus loved to big up his own role in the Jewish revolt and Tacitus was not above an anti imperial slant as he belonged to the eclipsed aristocracy.
Secondly, even if they acknowledged the existence of the historic character Jesus (it's a long time since I read either so I'll take your word for it) that does not make him divine. Mohammed was an historical character too. Do you recognize him as divinely inspired too? That will lead you into one hell of a religious muddle. Also, reporting the existence of a belief does not make that belief true or imply your own acceptance of it. You can be an historian of communism for example without being a communist.
I'm all for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have witnessed miracles at childrens feeding time and am amazed that others already know the WORD of HIM. Spread the word.
Mutley, London,
Dear Josu,
You say it's science's job (not atheism's) to explain the origin of the universe. OK. How does science explain it?
Surely what we're discussing here is whether a theistic or atheistic worldview makes better sense out of the world around us. So for me to ask for explanations for such things, and atheists to keep responding by saying 'I don't have to explain that' seems odd.
You ask if I think my morals are superior to yours because they stem from the Bible. This wasn't my claim. What I was asking was how the objectivity of morals (which you seem to admit given your use of the word 'superior') can be explained in the absence of God.
Finally, you seem to regard my citing of the empty tomb as evidence for the resurrection as circular. This is not the case. Many historians and skeptics alike admit the empty tomb on the basis of how well attested it is historically. They simply explain it some other way (eg that the body was never put there in the first place).
james bejon, romford, essex
PeterB : Lincoln : That's a lot of words to say "We don't yet know, therefore the answer must be magic".
You ended on a superb "And with a single bound, god was free" bit of logic - excellent and greatly unhindered by evidence.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
I would only hope that Mr Edwards at some point in future will realise that a religion free of doubt--as a faith-- is futile...and I would point to atheism as such a doubt-free faith. I hope he will learn to tolerate uncertainty and, after that, return to some understanding of religion's role in describing and understanding the mystery of humankind's existence.
It may be too late for him to regain his love of Jesus Christ, but he may find some peace elsewhere in one of the Eastern philosophy-religions, maybe...just maybe.
Mary Shelley, London,
Jonathan Edwards is a great athlete, a role model for any youngster and his drug of choice ( or addiction?) was God! I would marginally prefer this to chemicals ingested.
I have this feeling that God is just a chemical reaction in the brain after all. My addiction/illness was cured by the horrific death of my grandmother,after a life of service to this God and a reward of 13 years of pain.
I could go on but will refrain except to say If there is one god then there are a billion gods .
David Mills, London, England
Relativity theory stipulating a cosmological singularity at the beginning of space and time has been consistently proven. The quantum theory of gravity however - which hopes to prove the universe had no beginning - still lacks convincing observational cosmological evidence despite the massive ongoing efforts of our best scientific brains. This means that at the limits of our knowledge, time and space and matter all began with the formation of our four-dimensional universe. The cause - and cause there must be - of our universe must therefore exist outside time, space and matter.
What a coincidence? The Bible - and churchmen ever since - have been saying exactly the same thing about God. He exists outside time and therefore has no origin; is not constrained by space hence his ubiquity; and is not bound by matter because He is Spirit.
PeterB, Lincoln, Lincs
Dear Carl,
OK. Replace 'does atheism explain...' with 'can a non theistic worldview account for...' and repeat the same process. Surely it would be nice for one's worldview to be able to give an account of the world in which one lives!?
james bejon, romford, essex
To james bejon.
Atheism doesn't pretend to explain the origin of the universe. It's science that tries to do so. Atheism only says you don't need to believe in magic, or in obscure texts written thousands of years ago. Remember Galileo?
About moral, do you affirm that yours is superior to mine, only because is written in a book? (Gay marriage ban is really written in that book?)
The use of the 'empty tomb of Jesus' as an evidence is a very nice example that your faith is self-explicative. No matter how many times you are found to be wrong.
It is very difficult to get out of the brainwash we all get since children. I did it, and I congratulate Mr. Edwards. Welcome to the brave new world, and enjoy.
Josu, Bask Country, Spain
James Portsmouth : Have a look around you, how many things we take for granted were created by science ? How many by prayer and supernatural entities ? I'm not looking for easy mystical certainties, I want solid, reproducable evidence. If the evidence contradicts the previous theory, then the theory must be modified or overthrown, this is why science always progresses whilst dogma mires us in the past. To say that something "transcends the laws of nature" is to accept that it does not exist. Tell you what - try living for a week without using anything created by science, that includes electricity, cars, phones, TV, computers, radio - I think you'll find you would be essentially living in the dark ages where supernatural beliefs belong.
Dominic Shields, Cardiff,
Why does atheism have to be a faith ? For me it is the default position and nothing else , I do not have faith that there is no god , Just that God does not exist in the forms that we are sold in any current religion . I have faith in myself and that is more than enough for me ! I don't worship false idols :)
Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,
People can conduct simple experiments to see how science has described the universe.
People cannot hope to see a living manifestation of a supernatural being on demand.
It's crazy that some religious types think that belief in something that cannot be seen or proved can be compared to something that can be observed and studied in nature.
Science does not have all the answers, because people are still using their intelligence and passion finding and proving them. Science is more than an exhausted 2000 year old book filled with assumptions and fairy tales, written by mad men who were so fortunate enough to be labelled prophets by the gulliable.
George K, West Drayton, UK
As a lifelong religious sceptic (well since I was about 12 anyway) it is good to see a celebrated Christian release himself from the shackles of faith. Faith is a disease of the mind: it stifles the ability to question; it anesthatises the individual making him / her impervious to reason; and leads the individual into the error of certainty. I trust that Jonathan will come to know the joy of thinking for oneself.
James Bannon, Paisley, Scotland
Yes, James, some of those questions have been answered by science, others can be answered by using your brain.
starling, Lancaster,
James:
One does not have 'faith' in atheism: it is an absence of belief rather than a positive belief, and I think that different atheists will have differe