Atheism Not To Be Ignored

I am always pleased to find a prominent Christian preacher or prolific Christian writer who can't help paying attention to the so-called "New Atheism". I consider it flattery for the position of atheism when one of these folks feels the need to address the popular works of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. It is encouraging and even emboldening to see the thinly veiled fear among Christians that this "New Atheism" might actually take root and grow out of control if not rebutted. Interestingly, it seems that some may just be more interested in writing rebuttals for the sake of cashing in on Christian fear and interest, as it is nearly inevitable that a response book to a bestseller will sell enough to make a profit.

One concerned or ambitious Protestant Christian is Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He has written several response books and engaged in debate with Hitchens. Here are some links to his site if you wish to be likewise encouraged and emboldened:
Why The Horse Isn't Dead
Can't Tell The Players Without a Scorecard

Also, I ran across a response book which seems to be popular in Catholic circles:
Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God by Catholic priest Thomas Williams
"Father Williams offers an easy-to-use resource for building up one's own faith and igniting others'." - Amazon product description

Presupposing the Conclusion

To the atheist who asserts that god does not exist, the Christian responds, “That cannot be proven.”

To the atheist who states that they simply do not believe that gods exist, the Christian responds, “God does not believe that atheists exist. Atheists have to believe in God whether they acknowledge it or not. Their words and actions betray their self-deceit because all good things are of God, and atheists speak, think, and try to act on the basis of good.”

To the atheist who states that it is impossible to know whether gods exist, the Christian responds, “The existence of God can be known through the use of ordinary observation and reason, because God’s creation testifies to His existence…and truth only makes sense if it originates with a supernatural source…and reason only makes sense because God Himself is Logic…yada yada yada, many other goddy statements…”

To this last response, the atheist makes an observation beyond reasonable dispute in saying, “Claims of certainty with regard to knowledge of the existence of gods are impossible apart from the presupposition of the existence of the claimant’s particular god. Such a presupposition renders the claimant’s argument circular and therefore only acceptable to those who would choose by faith to accept a circular argument, contrary to logic. Indeed, the believer's argument presupposes its own conclusion."

Assessing My Christian Experience

In a recent comment thread, the question was raised regarding my own Christian experience. If you are a Christian apologist looking to interact with someone who has deconverted from Christianity, one of the fundamental points you want to establish is that something was amiss about the deconvert's Christian experience. "True" Christians who are supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit and who dwell in an authentic loving living relationship with their Lord and Saviour Jesus cannot just walk away, right?!?

I claim to have experienced Christianity to its fullest from every angle possible. I felt that I had intimacy with the Christian God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I studied and believed the Bible cover to cover. I lived in close community with other Christians. My faith matured. I had experiences which I thought should be attributed to God. I prayed. I chose my wife primarily based on our shared Christian faith. I shared and defended the Christian faith to others…agnostics, atheists, etc. I took very, very difficult stands on Christian moral issues in opposition sometimes to family and friends, and even resigned a steady, good-paying job over a Christian view. I was urged on multiple occasions by different people throughout my Christian experience to become a pastor, youth pastor, bible study leader, deacon, missionary, etc. I was trusted. The Christians around me “experientially knew” that I was a real Christian full of faith.

So I do not accept now and will likely never accept the attempts by any conversational friend or foe to suggest that the reason I am not a Christian now is that I never was one or was an incomplete or immature one. This is simply not the case. So, if you want to discredit me or if you want to win an argument with me, you are going to have to come up with another angle.

Theists Need Religion

Arguing against religion is an unwise path for the theistic apologist, because the claims of theism benefit from religion and conversely, are harmed by individualism.

Allow me to remind you that I am agnostic and was formerly a Christian. Ironically, this post is written for the benefit of a theist who has recently indicated in my comment boxes that "religion" is to blame for some atheists and agnostics either giving up on the Christian faith or refraining from trying it in the first place. The commenter's position generally is to say that Christianity is about "relationship", not "religion." I think this person is hurting her own endeavor by opposing a vital part of the theist platform. So...keep in mind that I am not in favor of religion and am not an adherent to Christianity or personal walks with Jesus, etc. I am an agnostic, benevolently writing to help a Christian stop arguing against herself.

If only one Creator God exists and wants to convert people to follow him and wants these converts to follow him in a particular way (such as having a personal walk with Jesus and turning from sin and obeying his commands and principles, etc), then he is highly unlikely to be in favor of a disorderly and haphazard message about who he is and what he requires of his followers. Instead, he is likely to provide a means of unity among his people.

Unity among Christianity is supposed to be one of the sure signs of legitimacy since God is supposed to be One in Three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is reckoned by the Bible to have desired that his followers be unified just as he was unified with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

So, what is required for unity? Follower A says that all they need to have in common is Jesus, but then also mentions that he doesn't believe in the Resurrection. Follower B says that belief in the Resurrection is a fundamental tenet for unity, but then also mentions that he believes women can be pastors. Follower C says that only men can have the role of pastor because Jesus was a man and chose men to be apostles not women, but then he also mentions that homosexuality is not a sin. Follower D says that no one who condones homosexuality can be a Christian, but then he also mentions that there are a few books which belong in the Bible which didn't get included. Follower E says that the Bible is God's complete Word and nothing can be added or taken away. And so on and so on and so on and so on.

So, what is required for unity? Historical Christian Answer: Faith in Jesus of course...but also Faith in a God-ordained and God-preserved religion which serves as an objective point-of-reference for properly discerning God's intentions throughout historical events and through the God-breathed Bible. Since the time that Jesus lived 2000 years ago, the vast (and I mean vast) majority of Christians have believed that Jesus chose his apostles to ordain leaders and to preserve the true faith throughout every generation by handing-on (see the latin "traditio", where we derive "tradition") right doctrine (orthodoxy) and right practice (orthopraxy) through faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders, etc.

According to the historical Christian belief, after a few generations of faithful handing-on, the legitimate successors of the apostles began to deliberate about formally declaring certain religious writings as having been inspired directly by God. These successors (within the very clear context of formal religion...not loosy-goosy every man for themselves individualistic warm-fuzzy Christianity) debated and discussed and finally settled on what is known as the "canon". Christians believe that this process was guided by the Holy Spirit (otherwise it would just be the opinions of men). But some Christians believe that the Bible is essentially a very direct gift to Christianity from God...forgetting that the Bible is actually a product of formal, orderly, traditional religion.

These Christians who think that religion is bad for Christianity do not see how much worse individualism is for Christianity.

Here is the result of the individualistic rejection of the traditional, God-ordained, God-preserved religion of the successors of the apostles: there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations world-wide with many, many, many variances on who God is and what he requires of his followers. And here is how that happens:

Pastor A: God is XYZ and desires XYZ.
Follower A: The Bible says that is not quite right, pastor.
Pastor A: This is the traditional way of understanding the Bible on this point.
Follower A: But here are a few verses that contradict that teaching.
Pastor A: You are taking those verses out of context and not interpreting them correctly.
Follower A: But I prayed about it and the Holy Spirit confirmed that I'm right.
Pastor A: The Holy Spirit confirms interpretations of the Bible through the teachers of the Church, not through your private prayers.
Follower A: No, the Holy Spirit works in my heart and helps me directly. I'm going to the church down the street that sees this the way I do.
[then onto the new church, same situation, multiple times, various issues...then lo and behold]
Follower A cannot find the ideal church which agrees with his view on every point all the time, so Follower A calls a few friends to start meeting at his house on Sunday mornings, and shortly thereafter becomes a pastor teaching followers and encountering the same individualism among them that started this never-ending hoorah in the first place.

So my advice to all people who can't figure out why they should abandon the whole practice of Christianity is to do this for the sake of your Christian cause: adhere to an historic religious structure within Christianity that will give you some slight appearance of unity at least, instead of blatant do-what-you-want-to-do individualism which is a clear indicator that God (if he exists at all) does not exist in the way, shape, and form that Christians think that he does.

Answering the Answerer

In response to my "Presuppositional Apologetics" below, Karla the Answer Bearer writes, "Your claiming this method as being unfair. It would seem maybe it has credence, and you don't like it. I will say, I never enter these conversations to "win an argument." She goes on to write some other lovely comments that you should read. This post is my response for the general benefit of any readers who may share her perspective:

I do not claim that the presuppositional method of apologetics is unfair. I suggest that utilizing the method without disclosing intent is dishonest, and I suggest that the method may sometimes reveal arrogance and ignorance on the part of the one utilizing it.

Thank you for elaborating on your interest in conversation. I’m sure that as you endeavor to help others grow, you do in fact have warm-hearted intent. Believe me, this is all very fresh for me. I am very familiar with the desire to disarm someone who disagrees by couching an apology as simply conversational, and a longing for mutual benefit and growth.

You, like all people everywhere, believe that you are right…regardless of your openness to discuss and hear other viewpoints. And believing that you are right (which is not at all a bad thing), you intend for others to believe as you believe (again, not a bad thing, very natural). When you engage in an “interchange of beliefs,” you want to avoid hostility and the reduction of the discussion to “mere debate,” but ultimately this desire is aimed at bringing others to your point-of-view. So yes, you do want to “win the argument”, and make no mistake, just because you don’t want to use the term argument doesn’t mean that you are not making one. Presuppositional, classical evidential, etc. At the end of the day, you are putting forward a position in contrast to another position. And I am inclined to think that you are not at all ignorant of these things, since your blogger profile indicates your strong interest in apologetics.

I should remind everyone that I am not at all opposed to this very natural exchange of ideas. Let us all continue to “grow” and “see people” and “discuss” and “interchange” and avoid “hostility” and pursue “truth.” But also, let us be honest in the process.

And for the record, my post was written before I stumbled into your discussion with GodlessWoman. It was inspired by the blog of Peter Hitchens.

Presuppositional Apologetics

Surely the first step in winning an argument is to believe that one is arguing the “right” view . It seems also that step two for some people is to think, talk, and act with a confidence bordering on arrogance…suggesting that being right is a foregone conclusion and that the process of arguing is mostly a formality simply to demonstrate the idiocy of the opponent for thinking there is a legitimate alternative to one’s view.

If you sense that someone is attempting to subject you to this sort of argumentation, proceed with caution. For instance, take it as a red flag if you hear someone with an opposing viewpoint say something to the effect of, “you are borrowing words and ideas from my worldview in order to construct your own.” This is a sure sign that you are dealing with what is popularly known as “presuppositional apologetics,” the method of argumentation which seeks to reduce an opponent’s platform down to its most basic words and ideas and then suggest that those foundational tenets are actually borrowed from the “right” platform.

Someone using these tactics is capable of making an unsuspecting opponent appear rather dim-witted. I would liken it to two teenage boys who agree to “trade punches,” but one of the boys is holding a roll of nickels in his fist without disclosing the advantage. In other words, the notion of presuppositional apologetics may not be “bad” on its own, but if one participant is not familiar with the method, and the advantage is not disclosed to him, there is a certain dishonesty in the situation and a presuppositionalist might win the argument based on method alone without having the upper hand in terms of actual substance.

In fact, it’s important to note that some presuppositionalists may not be attempting to produce any sort of substantial argumentation in favour of their own position. If the first two steps of argumentation mentioned above are executed well, the inadequacies in actual argument might be overcome simply through deconstructing an opponent’s platform.

Wikipedia has some interesting tidbits regarding Presuppositional Apologetics, including this: "The goal of presuppositional apologetics is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man and the world which they claim they do not believe. This type of argument is technically called a reductio ad absurdum in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So in essence, evidential apologetics attempts to build from a common starting point in neutral facts, while presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible." - Read the rest HERE.

Purpose-Driven Faith

“Religion expresses the human need for meaning, not a demand for explanation. For those who have it, faith entails understanding the limits of the human mind and an acceptance of mystery. Even if all the problems of science are some day solved, humans will still be searching for purpose in their lives, and for that reason alone they will need religion.” – John Gray in a book review for The Globe and Mail called “Don’t Write Off Religion Just Yet”

Mr. Gray reviews a book by David Berlinski called The Devil’s Delusion Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. I have not read Berlinski’s book, but I am given to understand that it is not a work favourable toward worldviews which are not theistic (it may in fact have been written in response to atheist Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion). In this review, Gray makes no secret of the fact that he agrees with Berlinski in supporting religion and opposing those who are not religious. He does not use the time and space of his article to put forward a compelling case for religion, preferring instead to rant against contemporary atheism while generally reducing the rather large topic of religion down to a very simple suggestion that only religion can give people meaning, and that as long as humans want to have purpose in life, they must continue to take up religion as their solution.

As objectionable as Gray’s simplification may seem on its face, I imagine that many people on both sides of the faith coin would agree with him. The community of faith has adequately marketed itself to the general public as the place where meaning and purpose are found, where the “void” and emptyness that all unchurched people are supposed to inevitably feel can be resolved. The marketing works. Generally speaking, when a person struggles to mentally or verbally capture their purpose in life, they seem to frequently and instinctively turn to religion in the same way that a person with a runny nose turns not to facial tissue, but to Kleenex. Mr. Purpose-Search Paul and Mr. Void Vic cannot just turn to personal reflection and conversation with companions, they “need religion.” They need to accept the limitations of the human mind. They need to accept mystery. They need to lay it all at the cross and trust God.

To find purpose and meaning elsewhere is to be labelled “depraved” and “tormented” and even “deluded” by the devil himself. And as I have indicated elsewhere, this sort of tone from religious people has sometimes been provoked by animated atheists.

From my present position, I would be inclined to get nose-to-nose (figuratively) with Gray regarding this review and express disagreement in frank terms. However, it occurs to me that Gray is unintentionally working against himself, and rather than disagree with him, I should encourage him to continue working against himself.

Religion, properly speaking, does not teach that the need for purpose and meaning should be a primary motivation for an individual’s adherence. For Christianity, the reason people “need” to submit and obey is that there is a just God at the helm to whom all must give account. The notions of purpose and meaning fall in line as person-oriented, and the chief principles of religion for Christians are God-oriented.

So, when an eager evangelist for any religion rushes out to proclaim that people need purpose and “for that reason alone they will need religion,” it reduces the burden of persuasion for the person who is endeavoring to say that religion is not a necessary element of a good life. In other words, some believers may want you deal with pointed questions about the existence of God and what God requires of mankind, but folks like this reviewer (John Gray) essentially throw all that out and the only burden on me is to say that a meaningful life can be had apart from religion. Presto, no more need for argument.

Smuggy Bear

I found record of a debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren which was written up in Newsweek early last year. It appears to have been somewhat informal and conversational with a general topic of "who's right, christian or atheist?".

Sam Harris is the atheist, an author and neuroscientist. Rick Warren is the Christian pastor of a megachurch.

I don't know whether Harris was ever a Christian, but it appears from the write-up on this debate that while he may have "won" since he seems to be "right," he did not successfully read Warren throughout the conversation.

As I read this, I feel like I can hear Warren's thoughts before the words even come out of his mouth. I suppose it is because some of these things are just so fresh for me, the novice non-believer. I know the objections...and I sense the absolutely effortless knee-jerk smugness in Warren's every word. So frustrating. I wish I had been there or at least that Harris had someone at his side who could have pointed out Warren's angles.

Maybe that's arrogant of me to think that my personal experience could have assisted someone who is intellectually superior to me like Harris.

Here is the link to Newsweek for you:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/35784

Debate on Religion

Tufts University Professor Daniel Dennett and British Lord Robert Winston have very recently engaged in a public debate utilizing the statement, "Religion is the greatest threat to scientific progress and rationality that we face today." Dennett agrees, Winston argues against.

Both gentlemen make fine points, but I was most interested to note that as Winston argued in favour of religion, he was quite ready to concede that certainty can be dangerous. Instead of taking the predictable angles on why religion is right and good, the pro-religion participant argues that instead of religion being the threat to rationality and science, it is actually certainty that threatens.

Here's Winston:
"....the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. ... With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science."

And a noteworthy thought from Dennett:
"Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty."

Links of interest:

The Guardian posts the argument summaries
Daniel Dennett's website
Lord Winston on Wikipedia