Give Me a Sign!

Saying to or demanding of God, "Give Me a Sign!" can be a dangerous thing, on multiple levels.


In a comment on "Vox Day's" blog, "Dr Kill" said this:

I think of myself as an open-minded skeptical libertarian atheist with 54 years of evidence-based observations of life.

Don't take this as blasphemy, but I will believe in God the instant He shows himself to me. I spent many days respectfully begging for a sign. Am I not as worthy as Paul? Does needing better or different evidence of His existence make my soul somehow less valuable?

I know a few true Xtian believers, and many Muslim believers. I admire their steadfastness, even as I remain personally uncommitted.

I lament the division this issue brings. I believe the posters here agree.

"Vox Day" responded:

How can it be blasphemy? If you don't believe, then you don't believe. That doesn't necessarily make you a fool, let alone a mocker. I don't think that worthiness has anything to do with it; Paul himself suggests otherwise. Regardless, I hope you get your sign one day.

Vox's response is just what I'd have said. Oh, sure, I might (or might not) have expanded upon this or that, but I cannot think of anything I'd say that would contradict what he has said. If I were minded to expand upon what "Vox Day" said here, I might go into some detail about how we can know via reason that God really does exist (as he does at other times ... one cannot, after all, say everything at all times).

I sense that Gentle Reader is discombobulated: "What! No rants about 'intellectual dishonesty?'"

Gentle Reader, you haven't been paying attention to what I say; to when, why, and how I say it.

I do not charge others with intellectual dishonest *simply* because they believe and/or assert things which I know to be incorrect or outright false. (Shoot! I have been known to turn that cannon on persons with whom I agree on almost everything.) Intellectual dishonest isn't about being wrong: it's about hypocrisy-of-the-mind; it's about assertion of a double-standard, one by which to evaluate those ideas of which one approves and another, stricter, standard by which to evaluate those ideas of which one disapproves.

All I know of this "Dr Kill" is what he has written there. Sure, Evangelical Atheists -- who *are* intellectually dishonest -- tend to use the term "Xtian" (usually non-capitalized) to refer to Christians; but so do others, including some Christians. Use of that term, in itself, tells us next to nothing about "Dr Kill's" commitment to reason.

The proper and moral and rational/reasonable stance to take is always to assume -- until reason and experience no longer allow the assumption as a rational option -- that while others may be in error, that error is honestly held. You know, just the same as we want others to assume of us.


Here is one man's story of when, being an atheist, he demanded a personal sign from God --
John C. Wright (2006): Why I am not a Deist.
John C. Wright (2007 and 2005): Total Conversion (more in-depth than the first item)

Certainly, a heart attack is a dangerous thing (whether or not sent as a sign from God). But, the deeper danger of demanding a sign for God is this -- "How will you respond to and deal with that sign, should you receive it?" Will you accept it as the sign you demanded, or will you blow it off? If you're not prepared to take God seriously, then you're well advised to not demand he show himself to you.