Word of the Day: Shermer’s Law

Christianity and atheism clash againI propose “Shermer’s Law” for this observation by Michael Shermer: “Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.”1

This observation makes an important distinction between (1) how someone came to their beliefs and (2) how they later defend those beliefs.  People often come to their beliefs for poor reasons—for example, they may be racist or religious simply because they were raised in that environment.

Few will admit as an adult, “Oh, yeah—I don’t believe that for any better reason than that I was steeped in that environment, and I’m now just an unthinking reflection of that environment.”  Instead, they use their intellect (much more formidable now that they’re an adult) to marshal a defense of their beliefs.  The belief comes first, and the defense comes after.  And this isn’t just to save face with an antagonist; it’s to save face with themselves.

We can come up with a defense for just about anything.  It may not be a very good defense, but it’s something, and it may be sufficient to avoid cognitive dissonance (“Surely I believe this for a good reason, right??”).  The smarter you are, the better the defense you will come up with.

All of us do this, and (this may be consolation) the smartest people can do it more spectacularly than the rest of us.  Isaac Newton wasted time in alchemy, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling in vitamin C research, and Nobel laureate William Shockley in eugenics.

No one’s immune, but this is common in Christians who cobble together rationalizations for their beliefs.  “In for a penny, in for a pound” is easier than taking a step back to soberly consider the logic of the beliefs.  And the smarter the Christian, the better they can defend groundless beliefs.

Try to uncover this by asking, “You’re giving me an argument for Christianity, but is this what convinced you?  If not, why don’t you give me the argument that made you a Christian?”

Photo credit: Wikimedia

1 Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things (Freeman, 2002), p. 283.

Related posts:

Related links:

36 thoughts on “Word of the Day: Shermer’s Law

  1. Bob,
    how is what you’re saying here any different from the argument that atheists are simply suppressing the truth and in fact in their heart of hearts know there is a God?

    • You’ve lost me. I can’t imagine how you could interpret what I’ve said to be equivalent to atheists knowing that God exists (and so not being atheists) but suppressing that uncomfortable truth.

      • Let’s start with your original “Shermer’s Law”:

        Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

        Now I would argue that neither atheism nor theism are weird things to believe. They are both quite widely believed and to put it in context we would probably find it more weird that someone thought that people believing in God (or not believing in God) was weird.

        But if you want to take a broader view and say it refers to false things, then you cannot without begging the question include only theism (or atheism). You must consider the case that there could be people on both sides who hold the position for non-smart reasons.

        You say:

        this is common in Christians who cobble together rationalizations for their beliefs. “In for a penny, in for a pound” is easier than taking a step back to soberly consider the logic of the beliefs. And the smarter the Christian, the better they can defend groundless beliefs.

        You imply that Christians reasons for belief are “cobbled together rationalizations”, they haven’t “soberly considered the logic of their beliefs”, and you consider their beliefs “groundless”. On what basis? That it is possible for people to rationalize in such a way. The only problem is that such behaviour has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of what people believe.

        To argue that Christians believe nonsense and then create defenses for their nonsense to psychologically trick themselves is clearly analogous to the argument that atheists are simply suppressing truth that they know about God in their hearts.

        What is more I am sure it happens on both sides. Aldous Huxley’s confession of his reasons for his atheist beliefs is well-known, and I know there are plenty of Christians whose beliefs have similarly ulterior motives.

        If you fail to see the comparison, then I fear you may be more one-eyed than I thought.

      • Karl:

        we would probably find it more weird that someone thought that people believing in God (or not believing in God) was weird.

        You act as if Yahweh belief is a majority belief. It’s not. Most people in the world reject it; most people in the world would find it weird.

        You must consider the case that there could be people on both sides who hold the position for non-smart reasons.

        Agreed. Atheists can fall prey to this problem just like anyone else.

        The only problem is that such behaviour has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of what people believe.

        It has a bearing on the messenger. You could say, “I’m going to flip a coin, and it’s going to be … let’s see … heads” and then flip it and be correct. But that doesn’t mean that your initial prophecy was worth listening to.

        To argue that Christians believe nonsense and then create defenses for their nonsense to psychologically trick themselves …

        But they do. And so does everyone else.

  2. Try to uncover this by asking, “You’re giving me an argument for Christianity, but is this what convinced you? If not, why don’t you give me the argument that made you a Christian?”

    Uh, Bob; the Holy Spirit makes one a Chrsitian. Not an argument..When will you ever represent chrsitianity truthfully.

    • Uh, Bob; the Holy Spirit makes one a Chrsitian. Not an argument..

      Do you actually have any evidence for this claim? I think what you’re really telling us is that you really have no way of telling who’s a true Christian and who isn’t. If God doesn’t exist, this is exactly what I’d expect to see.

      If the Holy Spirit can actually make someone a Christian, why can’t He also prevent people from falsely claiming to be a Christian?

      I guess the Holy Spirit can only do so much…

  3. Retro asked

    “Do you actually have any evidence for this claim? I think what you’re really telling us is that you really have no way of telling who’s a true Christian and who isn’t. If God doesn’t exist, this is exactly what I’d expect to see…”

    The evidence is the old nature we are born with is radically changed Nothing we can do ourselves or make up, or even want to do.. The Holy Spirit indwells the new believer and takes his heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. One can tell this radical change in himself as he hates his old self and now loves and follows God. Do I expect you to understand or believe this? No. If someone told me what I just told you, when I was unconverted I would have thought they were nuts! Sorry Retro this is a supernatural act of God, the Spiritual birth..Being born again, or born from above. Like I said we had no control of our physical birth and we have no control of our spiritual birth. That is a gift from God only. It is called GRACE.

    Retro also asked:

    “If the Holy Spirit can actually make someone a Christian, why can’t He also prevent people from falsely claiming to be a Christian?

    I guess the Holy Spirit can only do so much…”

    That is not the role of the Holy Spirit. The bible warns us over and over that there are false believers. And we are instructed to be aware of them..And there are many test’s and warning signs to point them out.

    • If someone told me what I just told you, when I was unconverted I would have thought they were nuts!

      Doesn’t sound nuts to me. This is the way it works in every religion. Outsiders scratch their heads, but those in the flock talk about how much they’ve been changed and how special the religion is.

    • That is not the role of the Holy Spirit. The bible warns us over and over that there are false believers. And we are instructed to be aware of them..And there are many test’s and warning signs to point them out.

      According to Acts Ch. 5, people can be killed for lying to the Holy Spirit. I guess that lying about the Holy Spirit changing you into a Christian isn’t bad enough to be killed for?

      BTW, saying the Holy Spirit “has a role” makes it sound like He’s less than equal to the rest of the Trinity. Is there some kind of script that the Holy Spirit has to follow?

      Can you give me an example of something that a true Christian can’t do?

      Can some people wrongly believe that they’re real Christians when they’re not real Christians? Or, put another way: Does the Holy Spirit actually inform you when He gives you this spiritual rebirth? If yes, how exactly does the Holy Spirit let you know? If no, then how do you know that you’re a true Christian?

  4. Bob asked:

    “.Has the Holy Spirit made me a Christian? I’m guessing not.

    Kind of an SOB if he refuses to do what he knows will keep me from roasting in hell, eh?”

    So as the Bible says, All men know God in their hearts but reject Him in unrighteousness. We see this in Bob’s statement. Just Like Dawkins who says there is no God and Hates God. Bob does the same thing. Bob say’s there is no Holy Spirit and Bob thinks the Holy Spirit is an SOB.

    Bob can say all he wants about why he set up his blog site. And say all he wants about that he has no problem with Christianity as long as it follows the rules. But we can see the true desires of Bob’s nature. He hates God. As I have been saying for months. That old dusty book from antiquity tells exactly what Bob has shown us.

    The only reason Bob takes so much time on this website is because he does not like the God who created him. He hates this God and calls Him and SOB.

    • So as the Bible says, All men know God in their hearts but reject Him in unrighteousness.

      Weird–I know God in my heart but just can’t see it (or am too proud to admit it).

      So are all statements in all holy books true? Or only the ones that you’ve selected?

      Bob thinks the Holy Spirit is an SOB.

      In your philosophy, the Holy Spirit consigns me to eternal torment. What would you call him?

      He hates God.

      I won’t admit that I hate Yahweh until you first admit that you hate Poseidon.

      That old dusty book from antiquity tells exactly what Bob has shown us.

      A fun game! Can I just pick any ancient book and inform you about your innermost thoughts? Cool!

      The only reason Bob takes so much time on this website is because he does not like the God who created him.

      Yeah–that … or the reason that I’ve stated before: that many Christians interpret their religion as being at odds with the Constitution and so want Christian prayer and Creationism in schools, Christian prayer before city council meetings, tax money spent on organizations that proselytize, and so on.

      You decide which makes more sense.

  5. Retro asked the following 4 questions:

    1) ” According to Acts Ch. 5, people can be killed for lying to the Holy Spirit. I guess that lying about the Holy Spirit changing you into a Christian isn’t bad enough to be killed for?”

    I have no idea what that means? Can you rephrase the question?

    2) “BTW, saying the Holy Spirit “has a role” makes it sound like He’s less than equal to the rest of the Trinity. Is there some kind of script that the Holy Spirit has to follow?”

    Well I thought you said you were a Christian? Look up the “Economic Trinity”. And your questions will be answered.

    3) “Can you give me an example of something that a true Christian can’t do?”

    Yup! Go to hell.

    4) “Can some people wrongly believe that they’re real Christians when they’re not real Christians? Or, put another way: Does the Holy Spirit actually inform you when He gives you this spiritual rebirth? If yes, how exactly does the Holy Spirit let you know? If no, then how do you know that you’re a true Christian?”

    Yes, I am sure people believe that are real Christians who are not real Christians. They knock on my door all the time. I have polytheistic Mormons who think God was an exalted man from another planet telling me they are Christians. I have JW’s telling me Jesus Christ is a created being and they say they are Christians.

    When the Holy Spirit gives you new life you will know..A drastic change takes place and as the scripture says ” …you become a new creature and the old things pass away and behold all things become new..”I can look back at my unregenerate state and see the things I loved then, I hate now.

    • Can you rephrase the question?

      Sure. The Bible tells us that a couple lied about the price of a field, and the Holy Spirit killed them. Seems like the Holy Spirit can not only save people, but also kill people.

      Why is it the Holy Spirit doesn’t still do this? Why is it that the only thing the Holy Spirit seems to still do is something that can’t be seen?

      Look up the “Economic Trinity”.

      Where’s that in the Bible? I’m wondering why I need an additional book to explain this doctrine.

      Yup! Go to hell.

      Again, it’s something that can’t be seen.

      Yes, I am sure people believe that are real Christians who are not real Christians.

      …When the Holy Spirit gives you new life you will know.

      So why don’t these people know that they’re not true Christians? I’ve talked to lots of different deniminations, and all will say that they FEEL that they have a new life. How do you know what you feel is anything different than what they feel?

    • Bob C:

      3) “Can you give me an example of something that a true Christian can’t do?”

      Yup! Go to hell.

      What would be nice would be a test that we humans, here on earth, in 2012, could do to see if someone is a true Calvan-approved Christian.

      I have polytheistic Mormons who think God was an exalted man from another planet

      You call Mormons polytheistic, and Jews call Christians polytheistic!

  6. Retro said:

    “…Sure. The Bible tells us that a couple lied about the price of a field, and the Holy Spirit killed them. Seems like the Holy Spirit can not only save people, but also kill people.

    Why is it the Holy Spirit doesn’t still do this? Why is it that the only thing the Holy Spirit seems to still do is something that can’t be seen?”

    Well the Christian God is Sovereign. All births and deaths are God’s will and plan. You may not accept this answer but the Christian worldview accounts for it.

    ” Look up the “Economic Trinity”.

    “.Where’s that in the Bible? I’m wondering why I need an additional book to explain this doctrine….”

    It is in the Bible! The father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have individual roles in salvation. I do not want to give all the passages that show this. Theologians took this biblical doctrine and called it the Economic Trinity. The Father Chooses from eternity past, the Son redeems those, and the Spirit regenerates them and indwells them. Each has a role. There is also the Ontological Trinity.

    “..Yup! Go to hell.

    Again, it’s something that can’t be seen..”

    Neither can wind or gravity be seen. Or the laws of logic. Are you saying all knowledge must be empirical?

    “Yes, I am sure people believe that are real Christians who are not real Christians.

    “…When the Holy Spirit gives you new life you will know…”

    “..So why don’t these people know that they’re not true Christians? I’ve talked to lots of different denominations, and all will say that they FEEL that they have a new life. How do you know what you feel is anything different than what they feel?..”

    If one claims to FEEL they are true Christians..We than critique it to the Word of God. If the Bible tells us in hundreds of passages that there is only one eternal God. Then is someone tells you there are many Gods that were once men. We can see they are deceived no matter what they say or FEEL.

  7. Bob said:

    “..You call Mormons polytheistic, and Jews call Christians polytheistic!..”

    Actually Bob Mormons do call themselves polytheistic. They do not try to hide this..It is part of their doctrine, they teach this. And if a Jew misrepresents Christians calling them Polytheist it is only because they do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. All Christians believe YHWH is one being. Monotheistic.

    The three Monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

    • I realize that Mormons call themselves polytheistic; I was simply pointing it out that while you may use it to denigrate a religion (or not), Jews see Christianity as polytheistic. (So do many observers, like me.)

      I realize that Christians call their religion monotheistic. It’s their insistence on having these three different gods that gives me pause.

      Yeah, I realize that the idea of the Trinity tries to paper over this, but for me it doesn’t work.

  8. “.. It’s their insistence on having these three different gods that gives me pause..”
    Sorry Bob . Wrong again! Who said a Chrsitian has three different God’s?
    If you wish to debate the Trinity please give the Christian definition. Not one you made up.

    • I can’t give the Christian definition. It makes no sense–sorry.

      If there’s only one god, YHWH, then who are those other two dudes?

  9. Bob said:
    “…I can’t give the Christian definition. It makes no sense–sorry.

    If there’s only one god, YHWH, then who are those other two dudes?”

    So let me see if I understand? You can’t give a Christian definition ( the truth is you won’t bother to look one up to show the Christian view) So I will make one up that is not true than attack it?

    Bob says about his site

    “This Blog Is
    “An energetic but civil critique of Christianity from an atheist viewpoint.”
    “A Clear thinking about Christianity.”

    So we can see the dishonesty of what Bob says and what Bob actually writes. I have asked Bob over and over to at least represent the Christian worldview correctly, and do what his blog says. A CLEAR THINKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY. But Bob continues to make straw man arguments and attack them. This is why Bob has no credibility and lacks scholarship.

    Here is the definition of the Trinity. “Within the one eternal being of God, there exist’s three co-equal co-eternal persons namely the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
    Here is Bob’s bogus definition:
    “.. It’s their insistence on having these three different gods that gives me pause..”
    Where does any definition of the Trinity say we insist we have three different God’s? Polythesim is the complete opposite of what we profess. How sad Bob refuses to present an honest critique of the Christian religion. Like I said Bob just hates the Triune Christian God so much. He is so blinded by his presuppositions that his arguments are bogus. No credibility!

    • You can’t give a Christian definition

      No, that’s not quite it. I can give a Christian definition (though I know better than imagine that it will satisfy the critical eye of Bob Calvan!), but I’m pretty sure you already think you know what it means. The more interesting conversation would be about your showing me why the idea of the Trinity makes sense.

      I have asked Bob over and over to at least represent the Christian worldview correctly, and do what his blog says.

      No, you’ve asked me to represent Christianity as it suits your worldview. In that project, I fail.

      Bob continues to make straw man arguments and attack them.

      Every post says nothing relevant about your religion? Wow!

      Within the one eternal being of God, there exist’s three co-equal co-eternal persons namely the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

      Uh, OK. Now explain the one but not three and three but not one thing. Is there a real-world analogy? Or is this just hand waving?

      My guess is that you must fall back on, “OK, the Trinity is something we’ll only truly understand in heaven” or “Gotta just take it on faith.” But perhaps you have something more compelling?

      Polythesim is the complete opposite of what we profess.

      Well … you certainly reject polytheism overtly, but this Trinity thing certainly seems to be polytheism. The Jews and the Muslims are (with me!) scratching their heads trying to figure out why you don’t just embrace the polytheism.

      Judaism and Islam–now those are monotheistic!

  10. Bob asked:

    “Uh, OK. Now explain the one but not three and three but not one thing. Is there a real-world analogy? Or is this just hand waving?

    My guess is that you must fall back on, “OK, the Trinity is something we’ll only truly understand in heaven” or “Gotta just take it on faith.” But perhaps you have something more compelling?”

    No there is plenty we can understand of the Trinity right now! Yes, I am sure the elect of God will experience the full effect of the Trinity in heaven.

    The “one” is the essence or being of God. ( God is one being not three being’s we are monotheistic) The “three” is the persons. The Father is a person has a will and a divine nature. the Son is a person has a will and a divine nature. The Spirit is a person has a will and a divine nature. Kind of like one “What” and three “Who’s”. Kind of like we are all “Human beings” but different persons. You are not me and I am not you. All analogy’s fall short. But a pretty good one is “Time”

    Time exit’s all alone. But there are three distinct expressions of time..Past, Present, and Future. The past is independent of the present and the future. And the present is independent of the past and future. And the future is independent of the past and the present. But time is “ONE”. That may help, not perfect but OK. So time can exist in three Past, Present, and future. and yet time is One thing.

    So we do not take it on blind faith as you claim. The Bible teaches there is one God. And the Bible teaches each person is called YHWH. And each person has the attributes of YHWH.. All are present in creation, worship, and salvation. Each has different roles ( the economic trinity) and each have divine natures and are co-equal and co-eternal ( the ontological trinity)

    • I am sure the elect of God will experience the full effect of the Trinity in heaven.

      So then we can’t understand the Trinity now.

      Kind of like we are all “Human beings” but different persons.

      No, not really, since you reject polytheism. That’s how this analogy would work.

      That may help, not perfect but OK.

      Right. The concept of the Trinity is not analogous to anything we experience here on earth, and it can’t be explained in any human language.

      So why all the whining about how I didn’t understand the Trinity, etc., etc.? It looks like you don’t either!

      The Bible teaches there is one God.

      The Old Testament is like a palimpsest. You can see the earlier polytheism underneath (Deut. 32:8, for example).

      If you pick and choose, sure, you can find one god. But that’s not the consistent message.

      And the Bible teaches each person is called YHWH.

      Jesus is called Yahweh?

  11. Well Bob has reached a new low. Take the second 1/2 of my statement and insert something I never said. In fact the first part of my statement that Bob left out says the opposite of what Bob said.

    Here is what I said

    “No, there is plenty we can understand of the Trinity right now! Yes, I am sure the elect of God will experience the full effect of the Trinity in heaven. ”

    Notice I said there is plenty we can understand of the TRINITY right now.

    So Bob list the second half:

    “…I am sure the elect of God will experience the full effect of the Trinity in heaven. ”

    And Bob inserts this false comment:

    “So then we can’t understand the Trinity now.” The opposite of what I said. I said there is PLENTY WE CAN UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW!

    Bob then says:

    Right. The concept of the Trinity is not analogous to anything we experience here on earth, and it can’t be explained in any human language.

    I explained it? Maybe Bob missed it? Here it is again.

    The “one” is the essence or being of God. ( God is one being not three being’s we are monotheistic) The “three” is the persons. The Father is a person has a will and a divine nature. the Son is a person has a will and a divine nature. The Spirit is a person has a will and a divine nature. Kind of like one “What” and three “Who’s”.

    An example ( not perfect but understandable) would be “TIME”

    Time exit’s all alone. But there are three distinct expressions of time..Past, Present, and Future. The past is independent of the present and the future. And the present is independent of the past and future. And the future is independent of the past and the present. But time is “ONE”. That may help, not perfect but OK. So time can exist in three Past, Present, and future. and yet time is One thing.

    Bob said:

    “So why all the whining about how I didn’t understand the Trinity, etc., etc.? It looks like you don’t either!”

    Yes I do understand it and I explained it. You may not like the answer but the answer is a logical answer.

    Bob said:

    The Old Testament is like a palimpsest. You can see the earlier polytheism underneath (Deut. 32:8, for example).

    If you pick and choose, sure, you can find one god. But that’s not the consistent message.

    Really LOL! There are thousands of verses that tell us there is only one God. That is one of the main themes of the Bible that there is only one God the Creator YHWH. As God says :

    “Thus says Jehovah, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the First and I am the Last, and there is no God besides Me.”

    And understand that I am He.
    Before Me there was no God formed,
    And there will be none after Me.
    11 “I, even I, am the LORD,
    And there is no savior besides Me.

    5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other;
    Besides Me there is no God.

    And the Bible teaches each person is called YHWH.

    Bob asked

    “Jesus is called Yahweh?”

    You bet!

    • Well Bob has reached a new low.

      And a very Happy New Year to you as well!

      “So then we can’t understand the Trinity now.” The opposite of what I said.

      Right. Because you said that full understanding awaits us in heaven. (When I say “us,” of course I mean “you” because I have a trillion-year-long date with a roasting spit after I die.)

      The “one” is the essence or being of God. ( God is one being not three being’s we are monotheistic) The “three” is the persons. The Father is a person has a will and a divine nature. the Son is a person has a will and a divine nature. The Spirit is a person has a will and a divine nature. Kind of like one “What” and three “Who’s”.

      I appreciate your trying again, but this makes no sense. You’ve admitted that there is no earthly analogy.

      It’s like saying that Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades were three supernatural brothers. If we imagine that they shared a common power source (essence), would this make their relationship equivalent to the Trinity? I don’t think so—these are three separate people, and as soon as someone suggests that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate people, he gets his wrist slapped.

      Let me try to help you out. You know what a Mobius strip is? It’s a band with just one side. You can make a model of it with a strip of paper (we’ve all seen them), but this is just a model. It’s not the real thing, because a strip of paper is a 3D object, not a 2D surface (with no thickness), which is required for a Mobius strip. A Klein bottle is the same deal, but one dimension higher.

      I think I’m describing this stuff correctly. Assuming that I am, we can kinda get an idea of what a Mobius strip and a Klein bottle are with our imperfect models, but they’re imperfect. This might be where you need to go—our explanations of the Trinity are like our model of a Mobius strip.

      The problem, of course, with this analogy is that we can completely understand a true Mobius strip—just like the paper model except without thickness. Any explanation of the Trinity still leaves us scratching our head.

      So maybe I’m not helping out much after all—sorry.

      (Another poor example is Borromean Rings, three rings, each of which is not interlinked with any other ring, but which are together linked. Maybe this is more an example of emergent phenomena. Oh well—I toss it out for your consideration in case it’s helpful.)

      Yes I do understand it and I explained it. You may not like the answer but the answer is a logical answer.

      It’s neither logical nor complete.

      Are you saying that you completely understand the Trinity? I’m pretty sure you aren’t. If so, let’s just agree that it’s not understandable or explainable except in a vague form.

      There are thousands of verses that tell us there is only one God.

      I’m not sure thousands, but there are some. I did a post about that. Much of the OT does acknowledge only the single Jewish god, and the idea of a Trinity would be laughable to the Jews for whom the OT was written.

      But as I referenced, the OT does record fragments of the earliest beliefs, which were henotheistic (the worship of a single god while acknowledging the existence of other gods).

      And the Bible teaches each person is called YHWH.

      Tell me more. I thought that the second person of the Trinity was called, you know, Jesus.

  12. Bob said:

    “Right. The concept of the Trinity is not analogous to anything we experience here on earth, and it can’t be explained in any human language…”

    I usually never try to give an analogous example of the Trinity. As all fall short. This time I did use the “Time” analogy.. Matt Slick uses it and it makes some sense:

    Time exit’s all alone. But there are three distinct expressions of time..Past, Present, and Future. The past is independent of the present and the future. And the present is independent of the past and future. And the future is independent of the past and the present. But time is “ONE”. That may help, not perfect but OK. So time can exist in three Past, Present, and future. and yet time is One thing.

    Personally I do not see any logical problem in the definition of the Trinity. And it is easy to understand. Do I expect the unbeliever to accept it? No!

    But the definition I gave is simple and easy to understand. For argument sake jump in the Christian worldview for a moment. Let us presuppose ( you do not have to believe it) there is a God..The Christian God. He says He is the only God and He knows of no other Gods. He is an invisible personal being. One essence. And within this one personal being , exist three persons. Are we saying this God could not be one in essence and three in persons? Triune? Would this be to hard for God? Are we saying It is impossible for God to be Triune?

    The “one” is the essence or being of God. ( God is one being not three being’s we are monotheistic) The “three” is the persons. The Father is a person has a will and a divine nature. the Son is a person has a will and a divine nature. The Spirit is a person has a will and a divine nature.

    So the definition; Within the one eternal being of God there exist three co-equal and co-eternal persons. Namely the Father , the Son, and the holy Spirit.

    The Bible also says God alone can only be worshiped, God alone created, and God does not share His glory with anyone. And there is only one God. And we see the three persons created , are worshipped, and share glory. And are referred to as YHWH. It is very simple to see the Trinity.

    Point is if there is a God, he can be one Triune being. No laws of logic would refute this. It is very simple in many ways. What is odd is the atheist attacking the Trinity. If there is no God there is no Trinity. So why bother to bring it up?

    • I usually never try to give an analogous example of the Trinity. As all fall short.

      I’ll agree with you there. Which makes me wonder why you even try. I suggest: The Trinity makes no sense to humans, so I guess we’ll just have to wait until we get to heaven.

      And it is easy to understand.

      I thought you already admitted that you don’t understand completely. No?

      Are we saying It is impossible for God to be Triune?

      No, we’re saying that the concept is impossible to grasp. One being with three persons–so are they subsets of the whole being, like past, present, and future are subsets of Time?

      Are the “persons” each avatars of the whole? For example, Vishnu has appeared on earth in many avatars.

      The “three” is the persons. The Father is a person has a will and a divine nature. the Son is a person has a will and a divine nature. The Spirit is a person has a will and a divine nature.

      Sure sounds like polytheism. Why not just embrace it?

      What is odd is the atheist attacking the Trinity. If there is no God there is no Trinity. So why bother to bring it up?

      You were the one whining that I couldn’t define the Trinity. Isn’t that reason enough to bring it up?

  13. Bob said:

    “Which makes me wonder why you even try. I suggest: The Trinity makes no sense to humans, so I guess we’ll just have to wait until we get to heaven….”

    The Trinity may not make sense to you. But to say it makes no sense to Humans is a stretch. I it makes sense to millions of God’s elect. Keep in mind being and persons are not the same thing in the nature of God. God is ONE being. That exits’ in three seperate persons. Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being. Pretty simple.

    Bob said: “I thought you already admitted that you don’t understand completely. No?”

    What I said as when we are in Heaven we will experience the full effect of the Triune God. In the intertestamonial time the apostles experience the Trinity. They were the first experiential Trinitarians..They saw the three persons revealed. Which only happened between the OT and the NT. That is what I meant.

    Are we saying It is impossible for God to be Triune?

    “..No, we’re saying that the concept is impossible to grasp. One being with three persons–so are they subsets of the whole being, like past, present, and future are subsets of Time? ”

    No.

    “…Are the “persons” each avatars of the whole? For example, Vishnu has appeared on earth in many avatars…”

    No.

    “The “three” is the persons. The Father is a person has a will and a divine nature. the Son is a person has a will and a divine nature. The Spirit is a person has a will and a divine nature.

    “Sure sounds like polytheism. Why not just embrace it?”

    Because the are no three seperate beings. They are not three seperate God’s running around doing what they want. One God!

    What is odd is the atheist attacking the Trinity. If there is no God there is no Trinity. So why bother to bring it up?

    “..You were the one whining that I couldn’t define the Trinity. Isn’t that reason enough to bring it up?”

    I was “whining because of you false definition of the Trinity. As I have always been consistently saying. If you are going to critique the Christian faith be honest and define our terms.
    Which you refuse to take the time to do..As I have accused you of..

    • I it makes sense to millions of God’s elect.

      But I suspect that they would have the same trouble defining it precisely that you do. If you want to say that they’re comfortable with the idea or that they can understand it somewhat (or repeat a definition), fine. But I think we’re on the same page in saying that the concept is not truly understandable by anyone, right?

      Keep in mind being and persons are not the same thing in the nature of God. God is ONE being. That exits’ in three seperate persons. Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being. Pretty simple.

      I’m tempted to say, “You mean like __ ?” and offer some sort of analogy. But you’ll just say no.

      So no, not simple at all.

      the apostles experience the Trinity.

      (Or so the story goes.)

      “The “three” is the persons. The Father is a person has a will and a divine nature. the Son is a person has a will and a divine nature. The Spirit is a person has a will and a divine nature.

      Oh, so then they’re like Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades–three separate guys.

      And, of course, you’ll say no. No analogy is possible.

      Because the are no three seperate beings. They are not three seperate God’s running around doing what they want. One God!

      Like Siamese twins maybe?

      (Bob C: No!)

      • I don’t know why I’m running in here defending Bob C., but I think you are being needlessly facetious here Bob S.

        You do not appear to be entering into discussion with him with the goal of understanding, but simply of being contentious.

        I think you actually have come across some good analogies of the trinity, but here are three that I find useful.

        Firstly, light. Is it a wave? Yes. Is it a particle? Again, yes. It has two different natures, yet it is still one phenomenon. It seems to be in a category all by itself where it has the properties of both waves and particles.

        Secondly, again, where does our light come from. Most of our light comes from the sun. But what is the sun? Is it the disc in the sky? Or is it a huge ball of fusion explosion? Or is it rays radiated down to us? Yes, yes, and yes. So are there three distinct things that are giving us this light. Again, no.

        Thirdly, imagine a 3-D object, such as a cuboid. This cuboid has length, in fact there is no part of this cuboid that is not covered by its length. It also has breadth. This breadth also covers the whole cuboid, but it is distinct from the length. And it also has depth, which again covers the whole cuboid and is distinct from the length and breadth. And yet, there is only one cuboid, existing in three distinct dimensions.

        In such a way, God is one being existing in three persons. Yes, apart from God, every being we meet has exactly one person. CS Lewis described us as living in Flatland. And he described the difficulty in explaining the 3-D world to a flatlander. You can call it nonsense as much as you like, but surely, there must be that nagging thought at the back of your mind, that maybe, just maybe, there is truth in what it being said that is simply beyond your understanding.

        • You do not appear to be entering into discussion with him with the goal of understanding, but simply of being contentious.

          That’s possible. Bob C’s caustic comments do little to encourage reasoned debate. I feel like I’m conversing with a bratty and petulant child.

          Firstly, light. Is it a wave? Yes. Is it a particle? Again, yes.

          But isn’t this the avatar model? Is Rama Vishnu? Yes. Is Krishna Vishnu? Yes. Vishnu isn’t these incarnations at the same time, but then neither is light simultaneously a wave and a particle.

          Seems to me that the avatar model explains how the three “person” appear in the NT, but I think Christians reject it. Tell me what you think.

          So are there three distinct things that are giving us this light. Again, no.

          This one doesn’t work for me. I can go into detail if I must.

          And yet, there is only one cuboid, existing in three distinct dimensions.

          For any one point in the cube, the length, width, and height are equally relevant (or irrelevant). But that’s not how we see Jesus, right? He’s way more Son than Father or Holy Spirit.

          Are you saying that these are perfect analogies or simply the best that we have?

          maybe, just maybe, there is truth in what it being said that is simply beyond your understanding.

          Granted. There are an infinite number of things that fall into this Maybe category, none of which I consider in my everyday life, for lack of evidence.

  14. Let’s stick with the cuboid example. You dont argue that it explains the three in one adequately. Instead you make a point that the way the dimensions relate to a point on the cube not being comparable to the relationship between the three persons of the trinity. Honestly, your point makes no difference. We have one, and yet we can identify distinctly three within it without dividing it in any way. It is not an exact representation of the trinity, otherwise I would have said, “God is a cuboid”. If you want to argue that God is not a cuboid, be my guest. I won’t get in your way. But I thought your argument was that God is not a trinity, and you have not countered this.

    • I like the cube example. I hadn’t heard it before. All I’m saying is that I would’ve thought that from a Christian standpoint, it’s an imperfect analogy. Is this right?

      But I thought your argument was that God is not a trinity, and you have not countered this.

      My point was only that Christians seem to simultaneously argue that the Trinity makes sense (that is, it’s not nonsensical) but that any time you say, “OK, so the Trinity is like X?” they slap your wrist and say no.

      I’m sensing that we could agree that the Christian argument gives you a vague understanding of the Trinity (like a Zen koan), but this is hardly cause to say that it makes sense IMO. The best explanation of the Trinity in my mind is that the early Christians were pulled between two irreconcilable poles: monotheism is mandatory + Jesus is as important as Yahweh. The result: the concept of the Trinity, which has no analogs that the human mind can conceive.

  15. The problem with analogies about the Trinity is that some of them are very bad, such as the egg example (white, yolk and shell), or the clover, or H2O being able to take the forms of ice, water and steam. All of these examples do not show how something can be three-in-one all at once and not be divisible into the three.

    Of course the actual doctrine of the trinity is more complex than any of these real-world examples. But I think the cuboid example is the one which comes closest to describing the point of the trinity that most people stumble on – how God can be three and yet one at the same time. It is the one that I use most often.

    Of course, you must have heard the old chestnut about the trinity, that if you try to understand it you will lose your mind, and if you deny it you will lose your soul. So while I don’t think the trinity is nonsensical, that does not mean that I think it is easily comprehended. I agree that the trinity is a secondary doctrine, following from that of monotheism and the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. One could go even further and say that the doctrine of the trinity is a model of the nature of God. What this means is that the trinity helps us understand some things about the nature of God, but that God’s nature is not necessarily exactly as described by the model. I’m OK with that. I can handle a little mystery in my worldview.

    • I can handle uncertainty in my worldview, but I don’t have much use for mystery. That’s a red flag for me.

Comments are closed.