I received two letters this week from friends/readers asking for input and advice on relating to atheists in their workplace/families. It brought to mind a number of things I’ve been wanting to say about evangelicals and their take on atheism.
When I was growing up in a fundamentalist Baptist church, the face of atheism was Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I knew three things about O’Hair: she had taken prayer and the Bible out of our public schools, she was trying to get religious programs off of television and she was a weirdo.
For years, O’Hair provided the face of atheism to America: an angry, ranting, God-hating, bitter old woman who wanted to force her bitterness on the rest of the country. The way to defeat O’Hair was simple: Christians needed to sign a lot of petitions and vote the right way when elections came around.
It was safe to say that few people wanted to be like Mrs. O’Hair, no matter what their case against God and religion happened to be.
In my collection of videos I have another face of atheism. It’s a “debate” between Frank Zinnser, an atheist and geologist from Chicago, and Dr. William Lane Craig and his three Ph.ds. It takes place at Willow Creek Community Church in front of a massive crowd of Christians. Zinnser is awkward and amateurish, raising freshman level objections to the Bible that have nothing to do with the case for atheism. Craig, polished, erudite, prepared and pracitced, mops the floor with Zinnser’s bad toupee and worse presentation. It’s a demolition job that’s hard to watch.
At one point Zinnser notes that there’s a bigger crowd for this debate than the usual attendance at the atheist luncheon. I’m sure.
The message for evangelicals: atheists are clowns. We can defeat them in any arena. We need not fear them because our team can eat their lunch.
I have a shelf of books responding to atheism. Ravi Zacharias. William Lane Craig. Tim Keller. No one can accuse evangelicals of ignoring the subject. Many of these books are written in response to the publishing onslaught of the new atheists: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and many others.
One way the game has changed is that when you proclaim yourself an atheist today, you aren’t signing up with O’Hair and Zinnser and the atheist luncheon in the Chihuahua Room at the Peoria Super 8. Now you are identifying with respected scientists and journalists. Whether you agree with the new atheists rantings about the threat of religion to the world or not, it’s a lot easier to be an atheist. When John Lennox debated Richard Dawkins in the Birmingham Civic Center, Dawkins was cheered like a rock star by a very young crowd.
But I’m convinced the game is not primarily about arguments any more. As grateful as I am for Tim Keller’s great book The Reason For God and his two hour presentations on You Tube, and as happy as I am that David Bentley Hart and others have convincingly demonstrated the fallacies of the new atheist arguments, the truth is that the contemporary atheist doesn’t plan to play a game of 21 with our NBA All Stars. No, he/she is going to sound more like Ricky Gravais in the video above.
Atheism is just….easier. Occam’s Razor. Theism is too much trouble. It starts to sound like someone is trying to sell you something sight unseen. Isn’t your best move just to hang up the phone and ignore the call?
Douglas Wilson may be witty and William Lane Craig may be brilliant. John Lennox may teach at Oxford and Ravi Zacharias may be able to quote a dozen philosophers, but most atheist young people today are like Brad Pitt. Pitt was a kid walking the aisles in Baptist revivals, trying to find God in that mess when he met a Methodist preacher’s daughter who told him it was OK to just say no to it all. He didn’t have to live like that. He could call the torture sessions off and just be himself.
That’s what’s going on, my friends. I’m not zeroing out the big gunners, but I think it’s time to stop running from your kid’s professor and start thinking more about his friend who recently left his youth group and stop believing anything except the joys of rock climbing.
One of my letters this week stated that a 17 year old raised in an evangelical family was now an avid atheist, with many of the hijinks of evangelicalism as evidence of manipulation and control. He couldn’t mean take off your shoes and spin your socks over your head while singing “Jesus mess me up?” Why would that bother anyone?
Write this down: When the coming evangelical collapse happens, and especially when thousands of our young people bolt for non-believer status, a lot of it will be COMPLETELY DESERVED.
We addressed atheism with the wrong arguments. We didn’t ask ourselves how it looks to a young atheist. We never stopped to notice that if you are a 17 year old with serious questions about evil, miracles, prayer and the Bible you’ve got small chances of getting any help from most of evangelicalism. We’re having too much fun squalling at the President and feeling good about ourselves . By the time you find that book, talk, ministry, etc. that might help, you’re already beginning to suspect that this is the emergency room where doubters are taken for emergency injections of how powerful anti-atheism drugs and then sent back to the “Bless Us Real Good” Game.
Even traditions with deep and serious reflection on the issues that erode faith often keep those resources tucked safely away in a closet on the fourth floor of the house of faith where you have to ask permission to see them. Senior Youth Group: Visit atheists for a conversation or play Goofy Golf? Duh.
Our team looks good to us. Trust me, they don’t look that good to atheists. If you applaud the point-scoring at debates, you’re missing the point entirely. The fact that someone like Dan Barker (and there are dozens more) is out there at all, making it plain that the Christian journey has brought a crowd of people just like YOU to the point where atheism looked far, far better than what you were hearing in church and trying to live is all the ammunition that’s needed for thousands of people.
You see, evangelicals have made such outrageous assumptions and promises about happiness, healing, everything working out, knowing God, answered prayer, loving one another and so on that proving us to be liars isn’t even a real job. It’s just a matter of tuning in to an increasing number of voices who say “It’s OK to not believe. Give yourself a break. Stop tormenting yourself trying to believe. Stop propping up your belief with more and more complex arguments. Just let go of God.”
You can send an army against an army. What do you send against a group saying “None of this has any point. Give it up and go have a coke.”
Don’t think I am avoiding the case the new atheists are making. I take it very seriously. My students learn the Dawkins and Hitchens arguments by heart. They are deserving of the best responses we can put forward and we need to know what they are saying.
But I don’t believe the new atheists are making converts because they have a better argument. I think they are making converts because the fruit is ripe to fall from the tree, and we have little or no idea it’s happening. We’re setting up for the great ideological debate and the kids have found that it’s just more fun to have a drink with the non-religious crew.
Keller is still great. C.S.Lewis is still helpful. Craig is still impressive. But I’m not sure their arguments are on the right channel. Vast numbers of people aren’t asking for philosophy. They are asking what will let them live a life uncomplicated by lies, manipulation and constant calls to prefer ignorance to what seems obvious.
What we’ve said and written is fine. What we’ve lived in our homes, private lives, churches, workplaces and friendships has spoken louder.
We are the ones who appear to not believe in the God we say is real. We are the ones who seem to be forcing ourselves to believe with bigger shows, bigger celebrities and bigger methods of manipulation.
You can’t understand why some people just say atheism has about it the beauty of simplicity? You don’t see why Occam’s Razor is so powerful, even among students who have no idea what it means?
Pay closer attention. The game has changed.
The Internet Monk Archives 
I see the subtle difference but I still believe there is no evidence. I think that’s an argument Ravi Zacharias touched on.
Evidence such as the existence of the universe could also just as easily be evidence of the GSM.
LikeLike
There are lots of things that converted me back from Athiesm but here are a few (again..just my experience).
1. There IS a reason this is all here. I mean, it’s here right? It got here somehow. I finally had to come to grips with the fact that there is *some* reason. Big Bang, string theory, the dreamings of a self God, The Christian God getting busy for 6 days etc. Something.
2. I’ll never know what #1 is. never.
3. There is some pattern that I see in this world. Coincidences here and there, events here and there, alignment of beliefs with occassional facts, as well as some just unexplainable events that happened to me. It was almost like taking a handful of multicolored sand and tossing it on a surface. Up close it looks random but if you back away you see a pattern of relation in those unrelated grains. Once seen I could not “unsee” it.
I stewed and fussed over #3 for probably a decade knowing that it was one of #1 that was the cause and being well aware of #2. Very bothersome.
One day I finally came to the conclussion that I’m never going to know for sure. I’m just going to have to pick a door and walk through it. I know I can always step back from the door at any time but I don’t because I already know what’s here: No answers.
I’m probably the last person to try to convert someone but I’ll just say this: I know you know what I’m talking about. I can’t explain it to you but I also know I don’t have to. If the time comes that this itch becomes unbearable just know that it’s perfectly ok to believe the answer to #1 is God. There will never be proof of it but that’s ok. There will never be proof against it either. You are not a nutbag for believing in the unprovable.
Whatever path you choose I hope that this wonderful life brings you great happiness.
LikeLike
But what is justified belief? The literature is replete with examples of how people’s responses deviate from what is considered normative on reasoning tasks due to information processing biases, and our ability to select good premises and estimate their probability accurately can be distorted by many things, including self-interest. But to what extent do pragmatic and epistemic rationality overlap?
LikeLike
whistling in the dark
LikeLike
William James said, “To preach skepticism to us as a duty until “sufficient evidence†for religion be found is tantamount therefore to telling us, when in presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its law. And by what, forsooth, is the supreme wisdom of this passion warranted? Dupery for dupery, what proof is there that dupery through hope is so much worse than dupery through fear?”
LikeLike
I hope iMonk doesn’t mind me continuing a discussion of Ockam here, since it seems reasonably on topic for the thread.
Does simplicity mean truth? No. I think Ockam’s Razor is about believing stuff with justification (in the mundane, rather than the Christian theological, sense). If you have a complex theory, say “God is omni-potent-benevolent-whatever, but permits there to be so much suffering because he values free-will/has his own, unspecified, good reasons/insert theodicy here”, the details are burdensome, as Yudkowsky puts it. That is, the burden is on you to show that God values free will very highly, or has good reasons, or whatever. In the case of theodicy, these details are ad hoc, made up specifically to address the argument. They’re the details it is necessary to add to your beliefs so you can continue to believe God is omni-whatever, and surely he is, so at least one of them must be true, right? I mean, all you’ve done is added sufficient complexity to explain the phenomenon under consideration. What’s wrong with this picture?
I don’t expect teenage evangelicals who give up the faith go through the reasoning in just that way. Rather, I expect they have some intuitive notion that complex explanations need grounding, and see atheism as a way of cutting the knot. I don’t see that this is about science at all: all that you need to see is the magnitude of suffering in the world, and the claim that God is omni-whatever.
LikeLike
I would have thought this iMonk piece is more closely related to a different Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough
i.e., maybe atheism is the ‘good enough’ belief system?
LikeLike
It may be you are choosing not to understand it. Jesus’ divinity/oneness with Yahweh is canonical, yes? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God? If that’s the case, then all you have to do is…the math.
This gent did it for you: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html
LikeLike
“The thing is, you wind up functionally worshipping *something*…So atheists do worship. They have this functional kind of savior that allows them to feel everything is right with the world, and when that ultimate thing is blocked, cut off, harmed, etc, it’s not just a letdown, but it will bring out the worst in them.”
Wrong.
Not just a little bit wrong around the edges, but wrong all the way through. Here’s why:
1) You cannot know what is in the mind or psyche of another. To say that you know, in your righteous perfection, how not only someone else thinks, but how ALL the members of a diverse, disparate, far-flung group think is both preposterous and arrogant. Your supposition is invalid
2) Something supported with empirical evidence is not an object of worship. It is a fact. Just because my pen rolls of my desk doesn’t mean I worship gravity. Your term is invalid.
3) Atheism is profoundly affirming. If this is all there is, right now, right here, if there is no supernatural being enforcing his mandate — then all the matters is how we treat each other while we are here. Furthermore, we must do not only do the right thing (ie: be kind, look after the planet, care about the rights of our fellow human beings), we must do the right thing for the right reasons, because of innate respect. So even your extrapolation is invalid.
Perhaps you are confusing atheism with agnosticism; you wouldn’t be alone in that, as it happens frequently.
LikeLike
No, Christians define good and evil by a book, part of which was written thousands of years ago and has subsequently been rewritten, translated and re-translated by humans – a book which, incidentally, sanctions murder, slavery, and subjugation of women, amongst other things.
Good and evil existed before this book was ever written.
LikeLike
“Many atheists are good in the general sense. But to me, all there concern for morality when they can’t offer any reason to care about morality in the first place is little different than an adult saying they really believe in Santa Claus”
It is silly to say atheists “can’t offer any reason to care about morality”. I can’t speak for all atheists but suspect most care about morality because we want to see a better, fairer world.
It is interesting to note that, by rejecting healthcare reform, many evangelicals are saying that they don’t want a fairer world.
LikeLike
Well put, sir!
LikeLike
My apologies for confusing the theological and moralist terms in my usage, although I will take a grand exception in that while you can apply the theological ‘sin’ label to non-Christians by definition, that does not make it “opposite”, in that it is a not-exactly-incidental feature of Christianity that Christians sin and are sinful.
You could still claim correctness by separating Christianity the ideal from Christianity the people, but then we would not be talking on the same terms.
I realize that Lee did not couch it in exactly the term “sin”, but he follows a very common argument that atheists turn away from God “so that they can sin”, followed by examples of exactly what they think said sinning entails: not atheists going off to have a Coke and disbelieving in God, but rather a slanderous attempt to smear atheists with all sorts of depraved motivations and activities and further tying that to “the decay of society”.
His implications are sheer scapegoating, and in that capacity, he is wrong, though it such a common trope that he is likely repeating it from elsewhere.
LikeLike
Right. I was simply agreeing with iMonk that the principle of Ockham is often bandied about in these discussions by those who evidently don’t understand its meaning and proper use. So when faced with the problem of reconciling the evil in the world with an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God, the solution there is no such God seems to be “simpler,†according to a supposed principle of simplicity, than explanations involving human free will and a fallen world. However, “simple†as used in various interpretations of Ockhams’s principle, which is just a heuristic device, is a very ambiguous and subjective term; and there’s no evidence to support the notion that simplicity equals truth. Newton’s interpretation in his first Rule,†we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,†implies the ability to empirically observe the phenomenon under consideration (ie, scientific method), which limits its usefulness in the current discussion. As originally formulated (something like: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity), the principle was about necessity not simplicity; and for Ockham, of course, the only necessary entity was God.
LikeLike
Dear imonk:
Your arguments should be heralded as a wake-up call to the American church. I was raised in the evangelical church (my mom was saved when I was 11). As a grew older, I became disillusioned by several examples of hypocrisy in the movement: the articulation of “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” by those who not only hated the sinner, but actively capaigned against his rights; endless sermons on tithing to God, but few sermons on charity; three new pastors in a row who started a ‘special collection’ for the “new building fund’ which needed to start from scratch every time; the hour-long planning of the song service to ensure that the music program followed the emotional arc that would bring the congregation to a joyous and relaxed frame of mind to receive the sermon; being told to reject historical facts which did not match up with the pastor’s understanding of the bible; and the condescending sense of self-congratulatory “righteousness” which accompanied every deed. The modern evangelical movement is based purely upon how the God makes the congregation feel as opposed to trying to make sense.
I have become a much kinder person since I have left the church, and a more compassionate person who is more willing to forgive the sins of others. I have found it is much easier to forgive others their faults when accepting them as flawed human beings, not obsessed with thier potential as future converts. I would suggest that any church which would like to retain its young membership should -perhaps- try to reflect the actions of Jesus (compassion, mercy, charity, kindness) in order to get people to listen to the teachings of Jesus (faith, hope, love).
LikeLike
So a great portion of evangelicals have a faith they themselves do not understand and cannot explain, and deal with that by not thinking about it, and not trying to teach it. As a substitute, they offer refreshments and raucous entertainment.
Therefore, youth get a finely cultivated course of instruction where they learn little to nothing about the faith, since few know it, and even fewer can explain it. Instead, the youth get an exhaustive list of rules they are supposed to follow. Also they get lots of even more raucous entertainment and refreshments, and fun activities so they won’t want to go do things that might break the rules. If they don’t follow the rules, supposedly, bad things will happen to them. And while the bad things may not appear actually to be happening, don’t worry, evangelicals are working hard to get laws passed so that bad things do happen to people who break the rules.
And if rule-breakers manage to live their whole lives without bad things happening to them, don’t worry, God will send them to hell. And people who follow the rules will go to heaven. Except that it’s not really about rules but faith. So if you break all the rules but have faith, you go to heaven. Unless you break too many rules.
Oh, and sometimes people follow all the rules, but bad things still happen to them. This is because God is testing them. There probably is a rule they were forgetting to follow, or maybe a rule they aren’t following hard enough, or maybe they don’t have enough faith. Because having faith is kind of like a rule.
If this doesn’t make any sense to you, you just don’t have enough faith apparently.
LikeLike
Intelligent Design as the heir of Natural Theology (“thinking God’s thoughts after Himself” by exploring the natural world, a Renaissance philosophical underpinning of science)…
or
Intelligent Design (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean), the latest coat of camouflage paint for Young Earth Creationism and one more weapon in The Culture War?
LikeLike
Whoa, slow down there, trigger. Copernicus ring any bells?
You mean Fr Kopernik?
LikeLike
A excellent example would be a soldier returning from overseas after a traumatic incident who wants to go buy a six-pack of beer after returning home to raise a drink to his fallen soldiers. And what do we see happen in some states?
“Sorry, it’s Sunday, we don’t sell alchohol.â€
That’s still six more days of the week than in The Sandbox…
LikeLike
The Order of St Borg strikes again…
(“You WILL Become Catholic! Resistance is Futile! Prepare to Be Assimilated! We’re Gonna Getcha! We’re Gonna Getcha! We’re Gonna Getcha!”)
LikeLike
Even Islam?
LikeLike
Actually, by christian definition, the opposite of christianity *is* sin. Being apart from God, and failing to come to him through the savior is the very definition of sin. By the archer’s definition of sin, it’s missing the mark. When you miss the bull’s eye, you have sinned – high, low, or to one side or another.
So yes, he’s absolutely right in that regard. Is that appealing to non-believers? No. Does that change the biblical definition of sin? No.
LikeLike
Amen. All truth is God’s truth. Doesn’t matter who’s mouth it comes out of. Obama is a christian himself. That doesn’t mean we all have to agree with his points of view, but the man *does* try.
LikeLike
I obviously can’t expect you to summarize your entire teen experience in a single paragraph, but I’m confused. At 15 you knew “it” was a sham? Define “it”.
I’m being genuine, because there are aspects of my own faith I’m struggling with, and as you have stated that you’re analytical, what part of christianity did you see through as being fake? What truth did you find?
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand that.
The crusades (the only thing I can possibly relate your statement to) had nothing to do with Jesus himself, and everything to do with man’s petty bickering and lust for money and power. The first crusade was at least somewhat understandable. After that it really came down to everything but Jesus.
LikeLike
I think there’s a corrolary to your statement. What kids listen to in mp3 format (or whatever compression you choose), tends to be lossy. They’re missing out on fine details. They’re missing information. There are gaps that you can’t consciously pick up on, but they are most certainly missing.
You have to allow them to experience something losslessly in order for them to appreciate what they’ve been missing. Without that comparative experience, they aren’t going to notice or care.
LikeLike
The thing is, you wind up functionally worshipping *something*. Whether you define it that way or not, there is something, someone, that your heart ultimately seeks out. An object of ultimate beauty if you will. It’s a concept that I didn’t really grasp until just recently, and it’s absolutely correct. Many place that value on their significant other, others place it on “stuff”, still others money, vanity, celebrity – whatever it is, there is that one thing that your heart worships. Define it however you want.
So atheists do worship. They have this functional kind of savior that allows them to feel everything is right with the world, and when that ultimate thing is blocked, cut off, harmed, etc, it’s not just a letdown, but it will bring out the worst in them. Rage. Hatred. Or it might make them feel so helpless that they’d rather die.
The problem on the christian side of the gammut (where I fall) is that the arguments for atheism are very compelling, just as the article suggests. Logically speaking, I tend to fall into the category of “the simplest explanation is often the correct one”. Complex arguments therefore make me feel like something is being propped up rather than the right answer being acknowledged. That’s a pretty serious struggle of the heart. 😦
LikeLike
Peace be unto you also,
I suspect some are reacting because they are or were evangelical teens who are now atheists. Though admittedly when people become atheists varies (I know one person who switched from Presbyterian to atheist at the age of 70, he is now 90+ and still sharp and active in the Humanist community). Admittedly I was never an evangelical teen or even officially a Christian though I flirted with the faith.
LikeLike
Atheists:
I’ve really enjoyed the many kind notes, but there is one thing I keep hearing over and over that I’d suggest you take a second look at.
I keep getting atheists carping at me for various things I am saying about THEM when I am describing a DECONVERTED EVANGELICAL TEEN….Not an atheist.
You continually keep saying I’m wrong about x and y as it pertains to you as an atheist, but I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about the evangelical kid going from belief to professing atheism.
I would NEVER try to describe who you are and what you think. I have more respect for you than that. But I know evangelical teenagers.
peace
ms
LikeLike
^^ Atheism is just….easier. Occam’s Razor. Theism is too much trouble. ^^
I couldn’t disagree more. Theism is easier. Trust in God. Atheism requires one to believe in people and ones self. It would be easy to accept bad things happening to good people as “God’s will.” It’s much harder to admit that events are somewhat random, affecting believer and non-believer with equal probability. It’s very a very sober thought the evil men do does not necessarily come back to them, ever.
^^ He could call the torture sessions off ^^
Are you talking about God (capital H?). That’s one thing about believing. You have to accept that the things you wish weren’t happening are willed upon you by the almighty. If not, and God does will your suffering, then he must be ignorant of it or powerless to stop it. That’s a tough god to worship.
^^ start thinking more about his friend who recently left his youth group and stop believing anything except the joys of rock climbing ^^
That is a HUGE fallacy. Atheist BELIEVE very strongly; just not in your gods. For example I believe we are imbued by millions of years of evolution with the instinct to leave the world better, more habitable place for future generations. This is really the source of what you might call moral behavior. A world of cheats, liars, and thieves does not have the peace and stability to be the better habitat for future humans, so it hurts emotionally to misbehave.
^^ brought a crowd of people just like YOU to the point where atheism looked far, far better than what you were hearing in church ^^
Oh, it’s so silly to think there is a choice; this or that. It is NOT about rejecting the church for something better. It’s about lack of evidence to support every single thing the church puts forth. If you read scripture carefully like I have you will find the lack of evidence.
^^ Stop propping up your belief with more and more complex arguments. Just let go of God. ^^
OK, now you’re making sense.
^^ We are the ones who appear to not believe in the God we say is real. We are the ones who seem to be forcing ourselves to believe with bigger shows, bigger celebrities and bigger methods of manipulation. ^^
Well said.
LikeLike
The reason Christianity has become the primary target of said prejudice is because, unlike most other religions, it attempts to guide public law and policy in a non-theistic government. A excellent example would be a soldier returning from overseas after a traumatic incident who wants to go buy a six-pack of beer after returning home to raise a drink to his fallen soldiers. And what do we see happen in some states?
“Sorry, it’s Sunday, we don’t sell alchohol.”
First off, there is absolutely no scriptural basis for the prohibition of alchohol on Sunday. Secondly, if this law exists because of Christian influence in government, then why shouldn’t he be exempt from such laws?
You don’t see Hindus trying to ban beef consumption by non-Hindus.
You don’t see Jainists making the killing of spideres a capital offense.
You don’t see Jews trying to make it illegal for a man to shave after he is married.
You don’t see Shintoists (like myself) requiring you to have a purification right conducted on yourself after conniving against other people.
So why should Christianity (All breeds; Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) dictate religious laws to non-believers in reference to things like marriage, finance, family life and lifestyle.
Now you see why you are a large bullseye. As a Universalist Shintoist, I believe that faith and religion are very important to the world (Universalist Shintoists like myself even believe that many religious figures throughout history were manifestations of the kami [spirits, gods,] Including Jesus,) But politically motivated fundamentalist groups of all sorts (Christianity or otherwise) are everything that’s wrong with religious faith nowadays.
LikeLike
It should be duly noted that NOTHING SAID ON SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IS OF ANY RELEVANCE TO ANYONE
LikeLike
“Really, there are only two kinds of people: those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” — G.K. Chesterton
LikeLike
…The generation that came of age in the 1960’s and 70’s put forth the selfish concept that as long as it feels good to me, it should be allowed. The thoughts, feelings and needs of the rest of society comes second…
Hang on a darn second, I am from right in the middle of that generation, I still don’t get haircuts, and I can tell you that we “hippies” absolutely never claimed that “the thoughts, feelings and needs of the rest of society comes second.” You may be mixing us up with the Anton LaVey / Aliester Crowley crowd, who were a tiny minority phenomenon of the fifties. Or maybe the Randites, who were totally bonkers and still are.
…Christianity has become equated with “not funâ€. Sexual intercourse is pleasurable so no one wants to be told/admit that it has serious consequences (which is why it should be saved for a serious, lifetime commitment with another person)… So why should the government tell me who I can have sex with, what substances I can put into my body and what I buy or sell? Unless, of course, I get an STD, pregnant, addicted or busted…
Were you talking about Christianity or the government? because it looks like you jumped tracks in the middle of that argument. As for sexual intercourse having “serious consequences,” no one with half a brain ever thought it did not, but what does it have to do with the Battle of Jericho or the Nicaean creed or eschatology? STDs, pregnancy, drug addiction, etc., are all tangible facts in the real world; they are of material interest to religionists and atheists alike. “Teenage sex is inadvisable because of pregnancy, STDs, heart-break, etc.” is an argument atheists can comprehend and maybe even agree with; “Teenage sex is vile and abominable because a Saint from the sixth-century argues against it on incomprehensibly elaborate metaphysical and theological grounds” just leaves us atheists – not to mention your average teenagers – scratching our heads in puzzlement.
Finally,
We Christians have allowed the mass media to turn us into parodies, allowed the unbelievers to make us look like petty and unfeeling oafs…
Good Lord, what happened to the concept of responsibility? Do you suggest that the media are obliged to turn a blind eye to the repeated spectacle of professional religionists’ scandals and crimes in order to protect the good name of religion? Face it, it’s not the mass media who are to blame for self-serving profiteers like Pat Robertson and hypocritical sex-maniacs like Ted Haggard and manipulative political operatives like Jerry Falwell being widely perceived as grotesque frauds.
LikeLike
I want to thank everyone for their participation. I think we’ve heard plenty of points of view. I’m shutting down comments for a while.
Again, thanks.
ms
LikeLike
Faith–imputed by God–trying to inject one with faith is about as effective as one trying to find it. Neither is successful unless God determines to give it.
LikeLike
Granulor, if your god is one that, for instance, requires the Flower Wars of the Aztecs in order to capture enough victims to sacrifice to ensure the continuation of the physical universe, that makes a difference to me what god you worship.
If I’m likely to become a human sacrifice, I take a lively, not to say anxious, interest in your deity.
LikeLike
Hitler? Really? You really think we’re Hitler?
I guess we know what those camps the Militia nuts worry about are really for then, huh?
Nancy, meet Godwin… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
LikeLike
…too much to respond Andrew S but you seem like an intelligent guy. For the record–and I can’t speak for you or the man on the moon for that matter–I don’t do what I do for a “score report†at the “Game over screen.†I don’t claim to do it out of a pure heart either, any “pureness” I have isn’t something I had to begin with. Jesus Christ has laid down his life for me and set me free, I do what I do with that in view. I myself won’t be earning any ticket to heaven, it’s freely given and freely received. I don’t discount “now” as you may imagine, but life is pretty vain for me without Christ (please realize I am speaking for myself)–I don’t assume to know what all atheists think or believe. I just have a hard time believing that anything really matters all that much without Christ to make sense of it all. End of story for me. And I don’t believe in “deities” or argue for them. I believe there is one God and he has revealed himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and I have been lucky enough to bump into him and pray that others do.
LikeLike
Back up there, Jeff.
I don’t think Michael was saying “Atheists are lazy intellectually and since they’re not willing to do the hard mental work of examining and reasoning, that’s why they become atheists.”
By “easier”, he meant “simpler” or “clearer”. As Occam’s Razor is applied, no multiplication of entities. Look at the world; on the one hand, there is an account of clearly demonstrable physical experiments to back up the theories of a natural and materialist origin with no external entity creating or directing it; on the other hand, there are accounts of various entities of various degrees of complexity.
It seems simpler, clearer, more self-evident and more reasonable logically to say “Go with the physics and biology rather than the theology.”
That’s what he meant, not an insult accusing atheists of being idle and simple-minded.
LikeLike
quote: “Okay. First, many atheists can offer reasons, you just don’t agree with them. You don’t have to, but that’s not the same thing. Second, think about what you’re saying: you find someone’s worldview ridiculous BECAUSE it leads them to value goodness even when they don’t have to.”
No, I find it ridiculous because they have no reason to believe that “good” and “evil” exist in any meaningful, remotely objective way in the first place. It is ridiculous to value goodness if you can’t give any reason why “good” and “evil” even exist in the first place, especially if you dismiss theist for not having any proof of God’s existence. For example, if human beings are not made in the image of God and are simply animals, products of the uncaring forces of evolution (*FWIW I don’t have a problem with evolution per se, but I do believe in God) , why is murdering, or even cannibalizing another human being wrong? What if it brings one pleasure, as indeed it does to a few humans?
Obviously, any meaningful, objective sense of right or wrong can’t simply be based on preferences or feelings as some people take pleasure in helping others while others take pleasure from killing them.
Christians define good and evil by God. On what basis do atheist define it? Quite frankly, beyond sentimentalism and utilitarianism, I don’t see much of a basis for it under atheism. That is one of the reasons the moralistic tone of the so-called “new atheism” (Dawkins and Hitchens) strikes me as intellectually vapid.
rr
LikeLike
Recently I listened to an evangelical speak publicly. His argument was, “Sure, you could listen to the science about evolution, but there are greater rewards for not listening.”
That’s my problem with religion. It asks that I stay uninformed and undereducated, that I not think critically about things I hear and take outrageous claims “on faith”. I don’t know about you, but I can’t knowingly stay ignorant, and I can’t worship any deity that would ask me to do so.
So it’s time to join an Eastern religion, where the existance of deities is irrelevant to one’s personal journey towards wisdom and enlightenment.
LikeLike
Do you know much about Jim Jones?
LikeLike
I don’t know who “educated” you — and I use that word loosely — but you need to demand your money back. The Middle East was Islamic during the Middle Ages and anything but secular.
LikeLike
So well put…
LikeLike
Josh,
I mostly agree with you, but I wouldn’t say there is no evidence that God exists. I would agree there is no proof. The difference may be subtle, but it’s important. We are fools if there is no evidence, we are merely optimists if there’s no proof.
LikeLike
I was thinking last night at work about Ricky Gervais’ story and was somewhat saddened by one aspect- his statement that his mother only “lied to” him about one thing- i.e, God/Jesus. If she truly believed in God/Jesus, then from an atheist viewpoint, she did not “lie” to him, she “misinformed” him. If she did not believe but just thought it was a convenient thing to teach him (the clever comment about Jesus being “an unpaid babysitter”), then yes, she “lied”.
Now, I am not an atheist, so this is how I would respond to him- If indeed R.G.’s Mom was a believer, I would clarify the “lie/misinform” issue, then I would ask say this~
Your Mom taught you about God/Jesus while your brother questioned your faith & caused you to question & then disbelieve. You said your Mom only lied to/misinformed you about one thing. How many things did your brother lie to/misinform you about? If he’s the typical big brother, I would bet it was a lot. How trustworthy and how right about life was your mother contrasted with your brother? So why default to your brother’s disbelief instead of your mother’s faith?
Btw- after I thought about that, I realized that was the Professor’s question in NARNIA I: The Lion…,
Who is more trustworthy? Lucy or Edmund?
LikeLike
Yes, libtard, better. Please don’t impersonate a man of substance.
LikeLike
It’s just that people who rely on “faith” do not make sense to people that like facts, science, proof. What if our courts were based on “faith”? Would you like to be on trial for murder with a jury who were “believing with out seeing” that you were guilty, based on some faith?
LikeLike
Yes, Jens, Copernicus is the gentleman who penned the treatise “The Revolutions of Heavenly Orbs.” And, just so you know, he was protected from the Calvinists by none other than the Catholic Church, the very entity you were impugning earlier.
LikeLike
I’d like to take a moment to address something:
But if God does not exist, what reason do we have to believe that good and evil exist in any meaningful, objective way?
Now, I can tell you firstly that there are a few reasons that all the atheists you ask this are going to give you different answers: because atheism is not a worldview or a belief system. However, it is an amalgam of worldviews and belief systems that simply do not include a god (kinda like how theism is an amalgam of worldviews and belief systems that do include god or gods)…
So, I wouldn’t argue for objective good or evil…because I personally do not care about these things. (basically, even if there is objective good and evil, humans do not care about them, and our evolving senses of morality, even in religions, seem to show that we aren’t really gunning for anything objective and constant or, if we are, we aren’t very good at it. You already note this historically. While some people believe in this “never-ending progressivism,” it’s not at all true that we are necessarily progressing toward an objective truth or morality.)
Instead, I would argue that your question is loaded. You place “meaningful” and “objective” next to each other, as if they are coupled together. I do not think so. I think that good and evil and be subjectively meaningful but objectively meaningless and absurd.
So, why does good and evil exist? Because we exist, and we project it onto the world. So, it need not be something “objective” like gravity, which exists and influences things regardless of whether we are here to feel and monitor its effects. Rather, it can be meaningful purely because of how humans are (evolutionarily) wired.
Does that make any sense? It probably isn’t satisfying to you, but I would suggest that the morality religions offer do not actually differ. Yes, they *say* they have an objective source and they *say* they are objective moralities, but in actualities, they are also subjective moralities parading as objective.
LikeLike
We can not believe in a god yet still work towards a better future for all people and the planet. We’re not “dumb animals” – we’re smart animals!
LikeLike
Faith I think is what you are talking about when you say it’s easier. I read several comments from atheists that were offended because you said it was just easier to be an atheist. The way I read it, it seems that you are talking about faith. Faith is why I go to church, read my bible, and pray. Faith is believing with out seeing and I think you are right it is easier to do research and read documents that can give some hard facts about what and why about this life. I think that it takes a lot to go everyday and not understand everything and have faith that you are being taken care of by a higher power. I will tell you it burns me up that I am lumped into a group and called stupid and naive and just plain idiotic because I have faith and someone does not understand how I can do that, I think that it is kind of crazy that atheists lump Christians together and then get angry when they are lumped with O’Hair. I thought it was a great post either way and you have earned a new reader.
LikeLike
Jens, also, people miss the larger point. Why do Democrats try to convert people into Democrats, and Republicans into Republicans? Well, as far as the sincere people go, it’s because they believe their ideas are best for the world (that’s why they embraced them). Thus, they believe that the world won’t be a better place until more people adopt their “correct” ideas.
Now, you can debate whether this or that ideology, religion or philosophy is actually correct, but it really isn’t hard to understand why sincere believers (in anything) would want you to believe as well. And the larger point, in case some have missed it, is this: everyone tries to convert others to SOMETHING. It’s just a matter of what it is and to what degree they proselytize. However, it is only Christians who are expected to refrain from spreading their beliefs.
It’s a fascinating prejudice.
LikeLike
So he fell for the old Pascal’s Wager? Not exactly versed in arguing with Christians. Perhaps he should read this:
http://stason.org/TULARC/religion/atheism/27-Pascal-s-Wager-God-is-a-safe-bet-Atheism-FAQ.html
LikeLike
“One strategy that might work to combat atheism could be to”… leave the atheists alone, and accept the fact that they have other plans for their lives.
Just a thought.
LikeLike
Yes, certainly a rousing “argument” like this will help you win converts. When all else fails, insult peoples’ intelligence who don’t agree with you!
LikeLike
Interesting read. One strategy that might work to combat atheism could be to take the stance recently adopted by the Catholic church and endorsed by either this pope (or the last; cannot remember, sorry) that some parts of the bible are not to be taken literally. I’m not sure if there are enough willing to do this, but as a scientist it makes sense to me.
Thanks for the read
LikeLike
I don’t like getting into religion arguments with people but there was this one time I was working with a guy. He’s an atheist and just plain thinks any religion is pointless. We’re smart animals, we came from nothing and going to nothing and the goals is to have some fun before you die.
Well he found out after i started working there that I’m a Christian(not a good one, you want perfect call God)but i try to do my best.
So he came to me with the goal of charging in, showing me how stupid i am, and how pointless all these things i’m doing for and about God were and how I would be a better person for leaving it all behind. Not that i’m at work preaching fire and brimstone all day and night.
He boiled it down to this. “How can you, a seemingly intelligent person, believe in something that ridiculous. It has no logical basis of any kind.
So I said, “Ok, let’s look at this logically. We both go across the street to the sushi place and gobble up some sushi right?” He responded with, “Yea.”
“We both live with our fiances and plan on getting married?” “Yea.”
“We both work in computers and like playing video games right?” “Yea.”
“We both work at the same place, for the same pay and live in the same town.” “Yea yea so?”
I continued, “So our lives are not that dissimilar, by those standards right?”
And he said,”Yea but you believe in crazy spirit bullshit made up by some nutjob thousands of years ago.”
“So what you’re telling me, is you believe that none of it is real and that makes your life easier?”
“Well yea, it’s just a waste of time.”
“Ok, i believe it’s real, and it makes my life better because it’s not about my life here, it’s about what happens after. Let me put it this way, if you are right and there is no God, and we both died we’d go back to nothing cause we’re just dumb animals. Seeing as how we don’t exist in any fashion, none of it matters anyway and you couldn’t exactly brag about being right could you?”
“No, i guess not.”
“Now, if I am right, one of us is in deep shit.”
“Yea, i see your point, sushi?”
“Sushi.”
LikeLike
“Many atheists are good in the general sense. But to me, all there concern for morality when they can’t offer any reason to care about morality in the first place is little different than an adult saying they really believe in Santa Claus.”
Okay. First, many atheists can offer reasons, you just don’t agree with them. You don’t have to, but that’s not the same thing. Second, think about what you’re saying: you find someone’s worldview ridiculous BECAUSE it leads them to value goodness even when they don’t have to.
Think about the contrasting exchanges.
Christian: “I believe in in an all-powerful, all-knowing god who was born of a virgin and died and came back to life and ascended to heaven and if I believe in him I will go to see him when I die, and he teaches that I should do good things and love my neighbor.”
Atheist: “That sounds foolish.”
Christian: “God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise.”
versus:
Atheist: “I don’t believe in God. I choose to do good and love my neighbor because I think those are important parts of being human regardless of whether someone tells me I should.”
Christian: “That sounds foolish. What, do you also believe in Santa Claus?”
Atheist: ….
It seems like you could disagree with an atheist’s perspective while still honoring their desire to care for others.
LikeLike
I’m an atheist and I agree with this.
I strongly value theists who have faith — because faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things unseen, isn’t that how the scripture goes?
But you have to have that assurance. You have to have that conviction. I believe that is a personal subjective experience. If you don’t have it, you don’t. I don’t. So, I don’t try to fake it and complicate my life. I understand that in the future I could have such a subjective experience and then I’d feel differently, but I think the most powerful example is someone who lives their life humbly but secure in their experience.
LikeLike
How about one antitheist’s work on theologhy, against scripture and Kristologhy, in the last comments of http://anatheist.net/2009/06/michael-jackson-goes-to-hell/.
LikeLike
If I can try to mediate in between the message that I think Ken is trying to make and the argument atheists are trying to make.
it gets ugly yes. But the ugliness isn’t limited to religious people. I have noticed that atheists can get pretty ugly too but since there is no God that’s okay for them I suppose?.
I would say something like…what we are trying to do is account for this ugliness. Supposing a world with a god, the kind of ugliness we see doesn’t make sense (or rather, we have to change the idea of god). But in a world without a god, the kind of ugliness we see does make sense. Religious theodicies try to cover up, but it doesn’t really make sense unless we either tone down some attributes of God or don’t assume God.
This does NOT mean that “it’s ok” for people to be ugly. And I disagree (and I think most atheists would) with your statement, “if there is no God, then it’s not really important.”
I hope for your sake and all theist’s sake that you don’t find things you do in this life important simply because you believe in God or an afterlife. I hope that you find them important for *now*. For example, it’s important for me to try to be an ethical and moral person because THIS is the world we have and I would rather it be pleasant than terrible. I’m not doing this for a “score report” at the “Game over screen.” I’m not doing this for some higher purpose. I’m doing it because I like people smiling, laughing, cooperating, instead of suffering. And I recognize I can’t count on any supernatural being to swoop us from it all.
So, when atheists talk about ugly actions or ugly attitudes, then I think it’s because they are saying it’s rather incredulous to accept a god under these conditions, when there’s a perfect explanation for ugliness when there isn’t a god. It’s rather incredulous to accept the ethical code that theists of different stripes (Christian, Muslim, whatever) when their sources of authority don’t seem to be all that much better than human sources. This is not to say human sources are perfect (so of course, atheists can err as well)…but rather, if it is a human source, that doesn’t make a great case for deities.
LikeLike
You write, “We’re setting up for the great ideological debate and the kids have found that it’s just more fun to have a drink with the non-religious crew.”
You’re implying that people choose athiesm as an alternative to thought. You’ve got that entirely backwards. It’s often rational thought that leads people to athiesm as they recognize the fraud of most religion. It’s religion, not athiesm, that is overrun by non-thinkers.
LikeLike
Excellent post, Steve – on so many levels. Thank you. As a Christian, I have thought every one of these things repeatedly.
LikeLike
Bravo, you have presented the argument I would have if I had been inclined to address the matter here. YOU get it. But very few do — and this includes so-called believers.
God bless
LikeLike
Better?
LESS LEVITICUS. MORE BEATITUDES.
LikeLike
“Human societies have become less and less religious over the centuries”
Nuh-uh. It comes and goes in waves. Right now, Europe is pretty secular, contrasting the highly religious USA – but in a hundred, two hundred years, maybe the roles will be completely switched around. During the dark ages, the Middle East was as secular as it’s ever been, and science, maths and medicine took giant leaps and bounds forward. Now, on the other hand, the Middle East is heavily dominated by strict religious dogma. Europe had the renaissance in which logic and rationality were the ultimate goals of philosophy and art, swiftly followed by the baroque period, reverting to religion. It’s a very interesting subject, and no doubt, history will repeat itself.
LikeLike
I, acting morally as an atheist, do so for the betterment of all of mankind – whatever their religion. When humans realize we control our own destiny, then we have the opportunity to realize our potential.
Do you subscribe to the idea that your god is the only god?
I thought religion was supposed to lead us to a more peaceful, tolerant future. But we’ve seen how tolerant the religious are – tolerance to other religions? (no) – tolerance to other sexual lifestyles? (no) – tolerance to other’s views on abortions? (no).
Oh, one more thing. “Irregardless” is not a word.
LikeLike
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I didn’t want to derail the thread too much talking about the “easier” assumptions, but you’ve given a good explanation. I feel that, yes, things are “easier” for me now, in precisely the same way that a hard truth ultimately gives more peace than an “easy” lie. I feel that I can finally be honest with myself about what I think, and stop filtering the world through glasses that divide everything into “Christian” and “heresy.” I can simply take joy in good wherever I find it, rather than inventing ever more elaborate philosophies to explain why feeding the hungry is more good if you believe in a particular monotheistic god while you do it.
A wise man once criticized religious leaders who bound up heavy burdens for their followers, and then wouldn’t lift a finger to help. He recommended instead the “easier” burden of loving your neighbor. The commenters who seem indignant at lazy youths for rejecting the burdens the church is putting on them today might want to think about the parallels there…
LikeLike
Do Christians act out of love because they always acted that way, or because they were told to do so by their dogma? That’s the point he was trying to make.
LikeLike
Whoa, slow down there, trigger. Copernicus ring any bells? Modern civilization is heavily based on ancient Greek society, as adapted by the Romans – coincidentally, the same people who spread Christianity around.
LikeLike
If you really are a Catholic priest, you’re a schismatic. You have no calling.
LikeLike
Because Christianity is essentially evangelical, and because spreading the love of God around is pretty much the holy mission of all Christians. Even as an agnostic who thinks that door-to-door evangelists are really annoying, I think it’s commendable that they’re actually trying to spread the word rather than just keep it to themselves. To continue the analogy of Titanic a couple of posts up – Christians are doing the equivalent of making sure everyone else’s life jackets are put on right before jumping into the lifeboats themselves. From the perspective of anyone who has denounced the usefulness of life jackets it’s annoying as all hell, but keep in mind that the guy trying to strap you in is actually trying to save your life! Saying that you don’t want a lifejacket would, in his ears, be akin to saying “I don’t think the lifejacket would save my life” – which, to him, it’s pretty obvious that the life jacket will, in fact, save you.
I do want to be left alone to believe in what I want to believe in, but refuting the fact that anyone trying to convert you is doing it out of goodness is ignorant and narrow-sighted.
LikeLike
Untrue, the so-called Dark Ages were not all that dark, and the Catholic Church is the very entity responsible for modern science and civilization. I think your history is, to be diplomatic, just a bit sketchy.
LikeLike
apologies Helen, called you Heather, oops.
LikeLike
I won’t come and do that cause I wasn’t trying to be right. I will pray he does. Many of us suffer as Christians and as “other”… and we all respond differently. I was saying that could be an opportunity, that’s all. God’s richest blessings on you Helen!
LikeLike
Bravo, Michael, bravo. I am a convert to the Catholic faith, and I can that you’ve spoken the truth.
For all you atheist posters, you should now that the arguments you associate with Christianity are not authentic Christian ones, as those are only found in Catholic theology. The truth is that thinking men — intellectually honest men — become Catholic.
A good example of this is someone you forgot to cite as an authority, Michael, and that is G.K. Chesterton, one of the greatest philosophers to ever live. As he said himself, he was a pagan at age 12, and an Anglican later on until he finally converted to Catholicism. His arguments are profound and generally airtight; to debate him (even though he’s dead) is to lose.
And just for the supercilious atheists’ information, no, you’re not as smart as Chesterton. He was a genius nonpareil. Oh, you read him, don’t understand his work and think it’s gobbledygook?
OK, repeat after me, “I am not as smart as G.K. Chesterton . . . not even close.”
Repeat as needed.
Thinking men become Catholic. The rest disgorge tired, platitudinous arguments that were refuted before they were a twinkle in their father’s eye as if the arguments were new, novel and clever.
LikeLike
quote: “And really, who is the more moral person, the theist who is following a doctrine of reward/punishment, or the atheist who acts morally because he chooses to do so with no fear of punishment or desire of reward?”
First, mature theist, or at least Christians seek to act morally because they love God, see him as their heavenly father and seek to please him as such. They act out of love, not obligation or following a check list of rules. Sadly, some Christians aren’t very mature on this matter. Second, I agree that many atheist act morally. But if God does not exist, what reason do we have to believe that good and evil exist in any meaningful, objective way? I’ve asked this question to atheists on numerous occasions and have yet to receive anything approaching a logical answer. Heck, read Dawkins and he gets angry that the question is even raised in the first place, responding that those who raise the question automatically show themselves to be immoral. This simply doesn’t make any sense.
Many atheists are good in the general sense. But to me, all there concern for morality when they can’t offer any reason to care about morality in the first place is little different than an adult saying they really believe in Santa Claus.
quote: “There is one more thing to consider: the Enlightenment lifted western civilization out of the Dark Ages that were primarily caused by the Catholic church. What you are witnessing with your youth turning to atheism may be the start of the second Enlightenment.”
I’m a European historian. This is a profoundly inaccurate statement. It is common among atheists, but has no bearing in historical reality. It is an atheist myth, or propaganda as it were. First, it simply isn’t correct to label the Middle Ages “the Dark Ages.” No medieval historian worth his or her salt, whether they are religious or not, would label them “the Dark Ages.” The Middle Ages produced a number of things the modern world takes for granted such as the first parliaments, universities as well as technology such as the printing press and gunpowder. Later, many important scientists of the Scientific Revolution such as Issac Newton were in fact devout Christians.
Finally, the Enlightenment, which did play an important role in shaping the modern world, has a very dark side. The bloodshed of the French Revolution, with the Jacobins massacring Catholics was very much a product of the Enlightenment. Many twentieth century historians have noted that both Nazism and Communism were bastard children of the Enlightenment. Nazism was based on eugenics and “scientific racism” (which were all the rage among scientists from 1890-1945) as well as Social Darwinism. The Bolsheviks saw themselves as later-day Jacobins and viewed Marxism-Leninism as “scientific.” As a whole, certainly the twentieth century, which was a very secular one in Europe, was incredibly violence (two world wars, the Holocaust, Communist atrocities) . None of the this would have been possible without the Enlightenment and modern science. If human beings ever manage to destroy the planet, modern science (e.g. the atomic bomb) will almost certainly be the cause, not religion.
I can’t do all of this justice in this post. Irregardless, the idea of historical progress since the Enlightenment that atheists like to float around simply can’t be taken seriously in light of the horrific events of modern history. The idea that abandoning religion and “the Dark Ages” for “reason” and “science” should mean that we moderns should know better than to kill people by the millions in wars, government oppression and even genocide. But clearly we don’t. We aren’t more intelligent or more wise than people in the past. We are only more prideful. If the Enlightenment and atheism is supposed to have lead to a more peaceful, tolerant future as atheist propaganda likes to maintain, it has failed and failed miserably.
rr
rr
LikeLike
I think a lot of the backlash that will be seen when throngs of people rush to the non-believer side will be primarily because of the patently absurd Creationism/Intelligent Design debate.
LikeLike
A cursory examination of the history of Christianity gives the impression that this is a faith that has constantly reinvented itself to be more conveniently convincing. It has utterly changed from its original form and bears no resemblance to what is actually taught in the Bible.
It’s pretty telling that the big debate among evangelicals is about a change in strategy and methodology. Consistency of dogma is deadly to faith in a changing world.
LikeLike
correct you are. Plenty of others do say so and they are free to do so. If I read all 250 comments on imonks post here I might be able to point to some. Apologies to you and Ricky. He did say Jesus was what you say.
LikeLike
I gave up Catholicism for Lent years ago, and have rarely looked back. My mother (catholic) and father (southern baptist) are both fervent in their faith. I simply don’t have time for it. The sky fairy, holy spirit, great earth mother, whatever, went out of my life.
I learned about micromanaging in college – and rapidly realized that there isn’t a god out there with time to handle every snotty-nosed muttering for intercession. And for every Captain Sullivan out there, able to use his “god-given” talents to land a plane safely in the Hudson River, there is a god that put the birds in the engines to begin with. And, lets stretch that example even farther – did (a) god help Sullivan decide to become a pilot? So that in the great cosmic plan for January 15, 2009 he would be ready to land that aircraft? And what about the god that made the pilot schedule for US Airways? Obviously that person had divine guidance to make sure Sully was at the controls of that particular flight, on that particular date (and not in the restroom on final approach – oh, that would be the divine guidance in the FAA regulations editorial staff….).
Give it up already. Live your own life, in the best way you can.
LikeLike
Is is any different than trying to argue with someone who literally believes every word of the bible?
I am an athiest and i think far to many Christians associate atheism with satanism or some other pagan type “religion”.
When told that I am an athiest, i have been asked many times “well what do you worship?” A total lack of a higher power is more than some of these people can understand.
I live in a traditionly religous area- poor, white, and under educated- and i find myself, when confronted by religion, saying I am Jewish. It’s equally hated among Christians but easier for someone like that to understand.
I ask this question: Does the church, whether outright or covertly, reinforce the view that Athiests are “bad” people? I think they do, grouping us with the likes of BinLaden and Hitler when in fact, if left alone we are pretty much non-players.
I don’t care if you believe in god, I don’t care what you do. I do care, though, when, through social or politcal channels your views are used to shape public policy.
For example, gay marriage. Why should it matter to you? Is it your mission on earth to rid the planet of things that don’t agree with YOUR views? if so, gay marriage should be pretty low on the list. Poverty, abuse, war.. these are the things religion should be trying to stomp out.
The moral of the story is that left alone, we are just fine and dandy, provoked we can make a stink.you worry about yourselves and we will worry about ourselves.
GaB
LikeLike
Jesus himself wasn’t all that great. If we’re truly meant to believe he’s the same being as Yahweh in the Old Testament, then he’s responsible for a horrific amount of slaughter.
LikeLike
…didn’t mean to be insensitive, but the motive of my intentions really aren’t the point here. You make a valid case David, so thanks. I don’t want to be dehumanizing so I’ll just stop trying to talk. I’m pretty messed up myself and don’t have a neatly little put together package of points to argue (not saying you or anyone else does, not trying to hurt feelings here), nor do I have the desire or energy to fight with the experts and not just because I’d lose. But even I did lose I’m just going to just suggest that God would not cease to exist, or it wouldn’t prove he never did. God will fend for himself, he’ll surely use people smarter than me to “prove” a case. I am one little man. If he’s depending on my reasoning and smarts he’ll have to find someone else. I do see humanists, atheists, theists, and all of us as made in the image of God, so, good assumption you make there. But I wasn’t implying that “a whole category of people are incapable of morality or love or kindness.”… I was saying if there is no God it’s not all that important. We are all recipients of God’s common grace and I’ve seen love in action in places and by folks you’d never guess. That wasn’t my point, but if a sincere atheist you speak of took it that way I was misunderstood. I’m not sure it’s about my being understood though, my feelings aren’t important (and I’m serious about that).
As for morality kindness… I don’t claim to be all that moral and I can be a bit unkind so I really don’t want to get into a contest of who’s more moral and kind and who’s way of getting there is better.
LikeLike
Take a forensics class so you know what evidence really is. It is not faith – it’s a hard, verifiable FACT. Show me one FACT that god is everywhere.
I agree our Earth is beautiful. We better take care of it, because we as humans, are responsible for it. Just as we humans are responsible for all our actions – now, in this life.
LikeLike
I think he meant tackling the Problem of Evil, as in the argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God based on the fact that evil exists – not simply tackling the problem of getting rid of evil.
The (mis?)application of Occam’s Razor there would be to cut the tri-omni God out of the equation.
LikeLike
Brilliant article! Well-written and thoughtful.
As a former Christian, there’s one other really big reason why so many Christians have left for atheism: popular Christianity doesn’t have much to do with Christ.
Jesus’ message of forgiveness, avoiding judgment, and taking care of the poor isn’t some big secret. Anyone can grab a Bible and read it. So it doesn’t matter how good your arguments for it are, when the people making the arguments are largely vindictive and judgmental, and love Reaganomics.
You can’t blame the atheists for leaving a religion that wasn’t what it claimed to be in the first place.
LikeLike
I think it’s funny how someone can do good works because they, as an intelligent being, know it’s good, and because it makes them feel good. How they can believe that the same things you call sin are wrong and avoid them. They can even teach others to avoid them. But you look at it and say that he couldn’t be doing it on his own. It HAS to be Christ. It HAS to be your religion that moves him. Saying something like that is insulting and disrespectful. Christianity does not have a monopoly on good deeds. I just wish more would realize it and respect the good deeds of non-Christians for what they are.
LikeLike
Very convenient to say that the reason young people are leaving religion in droves is that they’re stupid (“Give it up and have a coke?” “Goofy Golf”).
Human societies have become less and less religious over the centuries, as more and more things your side explained with “divine truths” have been explained by science. No amount of whining, strategizing or complaining will change that fact. You’re dinosaurs, and your meteor is coming.
LikeLike
Lee, I have heard the “sin is fun” argument a few dozen times over the past decade, so let me just come out and say this:
The “opposite” of Christianity IS NOT SIN.
If you attempt to equate atheism with sin in this manner, you will fail to engage atheists, and you will fail to engage those leaving the fold. It is a false stereotype willfully flung.
The sins you describe have more meaning than the divine meaning you ascribe them. When you take away the divine, there are still real, earthly consequences to wild, unprotected sex and drug use: pregnancy, self-control, self-worth. It does not feel good to be out of control and on the street. It does not feel good to have your future cut short with unplanned pregnancy, or be looking at a life of living with an uncurable disease.
There is no theological lock on these themes. Selfishness, naivete and failure to plan are the contributors. That naivete (including the myth of “if we do not teach them, they will not do it”) is seized on as a method of social control is, to my mind, unpardonable.
I do not know if you would be of the mind to shoot back that atheism is somehow selfish. It’s a common trope that might make sense from a believer’s point of view, but from a non-believers point of view, how can it count as selfishness? It’s not anger at God (the rhetoric in discussing biblical tales might seem like it at first, but this is a reaction to the divine moral source arguments), it’s not rejection of a God that does exist… there’s just nothing “up there” in atheist epistemology. There’s just family, society, humanity, nature. To say it were selfish would be like the selfishness of an evangelical failing to put fruit, flowers and incense in a shrine.
That’s not to say you have to agree with it, but to ascribe imagined motivations from your *own* epistemology/world view would be to completely misunderstand. I think that’s in part what the author is trying to say here when he says “Our team looks good to us”.
If it is a scapegoat you want, look elsewhere. Better yet, don’t look for one at all. Throwing the light of day on our current tribulations is what’s needed; honesty, not tribalism.
LikeLike
First, I’d like to compliment you both on your post and on the quality of the comments you’ve approved; whether you choose to publish mine or not, I’ve learned from what I’ve read. There seem to be many excellent and thoughtful individuals participating here.
Second, as an open-minded atheist, I’d like to point out one way in which I have found atheism to be easier than my earlier faith. True, as others have said, it’s not easy to have to hide my beliefs from certain of my relatives, or from neighbors and well-meaning strangers. It’s not easy to accept laws made to force me to respect someone else’s holy day by not buying liquor or forbidding other activities on Sundays or even all week long. But what has been easy is the call to labor.
One can be free from fear, or free to speak one’s mind. The two freedoms are different in kind. Likewise, ease comes in different sorts. It has been easier for me to work to improve my own understanding than to passively accept mysteries. It might be hard work to help a friend in need, but doing so is much easier than seeing one’s friend suffer alone. It has been hard work to learn about geology, biology, and astronomy, and harder work to develop my own moral sense, and the hardest work of all will always be to try to live up to my own expectations.
But to do that work has been easier, though far more fatiguing, than to understand why I can’t understand the Trinity, or the many conflicts among different religions, or the Incarnation, and so forth. Work has proved easier and more rewarding than passive acceptance.
LikeLike
I’m a former athiest. I was raised a Christian, became an athiest and now I have come back. My advice:
Stop acting like religion has anything to do with fact. Especially stop this retarded campaign about “intelligent design”. It is some feeble attempt to attack athiesm on it’s home turf and it is going to lose every time. EVERY time. The lack of evidence against something is NOT the logical equivalent of evidence FOR something.
There is NO evidence that God created the Universe. None. You can’t try some “life is so complicated that it must have been made by..” argument. What you are saying is “we have no evidence of how it all happened. This includes having no evidence against God having done it. Therefore God must have done it.” The argument is a 100% logical failure. Let go of it.
I for one happen to believe that God DID create the Universe but I know my belief is not based in fact and **I have no problem with that at all**.
Other advice: give up on the Apologists. Seriously. Ravi Zacharias is a smart and clever fellow but his arguments convince no one except those that already believe. He is again trying to use fact and logic to prove his point. There is no fact proving that God exists and his logic that relies on this crumbles before reasonable argument. If it could be proven God exists through facts or logic then it would have been done by now.
I am more comfortable now in my beliefs because I have come to accept they are not based on fact. The argument that is turning kids off (it’s ok NOT to believe) is the same one that should be turning them on (it’s ok TO believe).
It really is perfectly ok to believe in God even though there is no evidence of him. Be comfortable in that. When someone says there is no evidence of God your response should be “OK” instead of some flailing attempt to refute what they are saying.
As a kid I was raised as “you will believe this…”. Had I continued to believe at that time my faith would have been weak today. At some point kids grow up and start really thinking for themselves. If you have taught them the “facts” about God then they will rebel once the realize the “facts” are false.
LikeLike
“They are asking what will let them live a life uncomplicated by lies, manipulation and constant calls to prefer ignorance to what seems obvious.”
You will find it is impossible to separate faith from those “lies, manipulation and constant calls to prefer ignorance.” That is what faith is. That is how faith is sustained. Believers don’t practice day to day on the basis of some philosophic Christian argument. They practice ideology. Even if they don’t call it that. And that is precisely what their children will reject.
And about time.
LikeLike
Martha, thanks for sharing that doctrine. I don’t really understand how the Sheep and Goats fits in a discussion of faith because in that passage people are assigned to heaven or hell based on their behavior to others rather than their faith – no-one mentions faith at all in that passage.
LikeLike
I beleive in God, but I’ve found that many churches and so called christains have very little if anything to do with God.
The “Anti-Christ” most likley won’t fool Atheist first. He has a much more futile crop in the churches. Seeing how evangelicals blindly follow whatever Fox news and the repulicans say, all the “Anti-Christ” has to do say he’s anti abortion and put a American flag on it and they’ll follow him anywhere. like Jim Jones, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Jimmy Swagert, Bill O reilly etc….. To many to mention.
Let’s also not forget all the pedifile priests that lead so many to atheism.
LikeLike
Here is the problem with Christians today: too much Leviticus, not enough Beatitudes. Just ponder that.
I you want to convince me that Christianity has any traction, don’t have a “bring-your-gun-to-church-day”, get universal health care passed. That’s what Jesus would do.
It is easy enough to practice the golden rule without the Christian baggage. You can spend more time helping if you aren’t spending time hating gays, atheists, working mothers, democrats, Catholics, Moors, Jews, Unitarians, Californians, foreigners, Christians of another stripe, and your own brothers and sisters.
LikeLike
Evidence of God… We can all be blinded by what’s happening around us every day. But if you pull back from that, look at the simple , yet complex and beautiful creation that is our Earth and the heavens, it’s hard to argue against a magnificent creator. Evidence of God is EVERYWHERE. In EVERYTHING. Open your eyes and SEE.
LikeLike
And here we have a fantastic example of why atheists are gaining in confidence. Christianity has ceased to be about what Christians do and has become about what everyone does. When an atheist does not hold to your beliefs, it becomes much easier to say “Well, that is your decision, if you do not like gay sex, then don’t have gay sex or whatever.” Christians stopped (or were they ever) being interested in how they should live their lives and more concerned about how others should live their lives.
LikeLike
Anna, what you describe seems more like an analogy of purgatory than hell.
The hell I was taught about is simply eternal torture – you’re there forever no matter what. Which doesn’t really make sense to me because who after a short while in hell wouldn’t repent even if they did reject God’s love enough to go there in the first place? And if God loves them why would he not listen – why would he leave them there forever?
But maybe those are not your beliefs about hell.
LikeLike
I was raised in a home where religion was not discussed, and by time I was 17 I was “saved”. Then I hit my mid-20’s and just literally woke up one morning and didn’t believe any more. I felt as if a great burden of guilt and shame had been lifted from my shoulders. I have been happily atheist since (20+ years).
If you want to know how to deal with atheists, you need to understand what our viewpoint is of theists (I don’t claim to speak for all atheists – after all we don’t have dogma). Imagine an adult joins you at work and he/she is friendly, intelligent, warm, etc., and then one day you find out this person actually believes Santa Claus exists. To atheists, YOU are that person.
And really, who is the more moral person, the theist who is following a doctrine of reward/punishment, or the atheist who acts morally because he chooses to do so with no fear of punishment or desire of reward?
There is one more thing to consider: the Enlightenment lifted western civilization out of the Dark Ages that were primarily caused by the Catholic church. What you are witnessing with your youth turning to atheism may be the start of the second Enlightenment. Would you have been one of the people who sentenced Galileo to what amounted to house arrest because he dared state that the sun was at the center of the solar system?
LikeLike
I also found this site via Fark.com, and would like to make two comments: First, I’m always encouraged when I see literate, rational discussion of Christian behavior by Christians. Kudos for that, and I hope to see much more. Second, you have completely missed the fundamental reason people like me refuse to align with religion in general, and Christianity in particular: arrogance. You are so convinced of your own ‘rightness’ that you never even pause to consider if you SHOULD evangelize your beliefs, and instead spend your time & energy trying to evangelize more aggressively. The core theme of this article – that people choose atheism because it’s ‘just easier’ is a perfect example of this. “Well, everything thing we’re saying is right and true, so there must be something wrong with those people. I know – They’re just plain lazy!”
You want to ‘connect’ with a modern agnostic or atheist? Start by admitting you don’t have any more answers than anybody else, that you didn’t invent morality, and that you know what’s best for everybody else. And most importantly, don’t have the audacity to call another group ‘lazy’ when you have chosen to have your world view handed to you in a book written and re-written – over and over again – by people (yes, actual human PEOPLE) with agendas.
Seriously, who in the “Hell” do you think you are?
LikeLike
…angry, ranting, bitter people hating and intent on forcing our bitterness on the rest of the world.
That sounds a lot like women of my family once they hit retirement age. They’d often be completely consumed by bitterness, and seek to make all they contact as miserable as they were. Like “I’m miserable! Why should anyone else have it better?”
I wonder if the “face of Christianity to the western world” is due to a similar dynamic. Lots of Christians being disappointed by reality — no Name-it-and-Claim-it Riches, no Rapture on schedule, no Magic Bullet Proving YEC, no Absolute Proof of God and the Bible — and are taking it out on everybody else. When Islam got future-shocked by reality, they responded with their own version of the Culture War, attempting to force the rest of the world into a perpetual Year One of the Hegira; what reason is there for Christians to not have a similar reaction?
Another problem is, as reality diverges farther and farther from what the bitter ones desire, their bitterness grows, and their attempts to spread the misery around to prove themselves right will become more and more extreme. (Climbing to higher and higher floors in Christian Monist’s building metaphor, where ground level is absolute reality.)
So I would expect as Evangelicals lose more and more in “the real world”, their attempts to force everything back to their Mythic 1950s Normal through the Culture War will get more and more extreme, their rants and anathemas and denunciations louder and more shrill, their worship fads (“You Spin Me Round”) to keep their numbers more and more extreme, their use of End Time Prophecy as escape/revenge fantasy more and more intense. With all this meltdown behavior synergistically accelerating The Coming Evangelical Collapse.
Until everything hits bottom like a drug Intervention. Question is, how much damage will have been done (by both factions) by then?
LikeLike
Thanks Michael. Good article and very good food for thought.
LikeLike
The finality of religion (especially Christianity) is what has made me a loyal agnostic/atheist. Christ questioned his father, yet I am supposed to believe and subscribe day in/day out until my dying breath. Even at 15 I knew it was a sham and that was when I quit my youth group and my church. I think that many teens, especially those with an analytic or curious mind, see through this thin veil rather easily. For some, it takes a little longer.
I wonder if there are any studies looking at the relationship between loss of faith and rates of suicides in teens.
LikeLike
Still trying to fathom how you figure that being out in the world, making your own decisions without guidance, without anyone to catch you when you fail, and with no expectation of an eternal reward is somehow easier than believing that a superpower is washing you of all your sins, guiding you, holding you and comforting you, and will have a halo and wings for you when you die. But yeah, atheism is easier. Keep telling yourself that.
Seriously, your pride and your lust for souls is shocking to me. This battle you imagine you are waging, are you sure it’s for others that you are “fighting” or is it for yourself? It sounds really, really important to you that others believe what you believe. It is my belief that this need, this greed for converts and to hold on to the youthful followers, is symptomatic of your need for affirmation. If you were the last believer in a world full of atheists, that might mean that you are wrong, misguided, desperately holding on to an ancient fantasy for fear of having to face the black void of the unknown. And every teenager that leaves your flock is another peg sliding across on that abacus, moving you that much closer to a spiritual crisis.
Religion can be a beautiful thing in the right people. Your desperate greedy version of it just makes me feel sorry for you.
LikeLike
Ken, I don’t understand why you are bringing up mocking in the context of Ricky Gervais. He said Jesus was brilliant, kind and brave and he was being serious, not sarcastic. He certainly did not say anything implying Jesus was a nut job.
LikeLike
You may want to look into what positivism is. It is hard to see the air we breathe. Positivism is the philosophical foundation for scientific materialism. It was pulverized more than 20 years ago and is almost universally rejected today.
LikeLike
I have a question for the Christians:
Why can’t you just let Atheist be Atheists?
Why is there so much talk about how to convert us, about witnessing to us?
I understand that this article is in large parts about keeping young Christians from lapsing. Fine.
That’s something that is basically an internal problem, and I have no horse in *that* race.
But often I feel that as an Atheist I have a sign on my back that says “Convert me!”.
Why can’t you just accept that my turning away from God and towards Atheism was a very informed, deliberate choice?
Why can’t you accept that “Jesus is my saviour” simply doesn’t ring a bell for me?
Why can’t you be happy for me because I have found my place in life?
Why can’t you just wish me all the best in my life and move on?
I understand that you’re trying to give me a gift of something that you consider very valuable. In a way that is commendable. But at the same time, aggressive witnessing is very rude, because it disrespects my choices.
LikeLike
Great post and good comments, But…
To be honest & religio-centric… this is the very Nature of Protestantism ( protest – ism ). Schism leads to schism, leads to schism, all from confusions and/or pride, over heavenly & earthly teaching authority.
Everyone should follow readings from actual Catholic “monks” from St. Augustine thru St. Thomas Aquinas & Thomas More + Cardinal Newman, to see where the struggle between our better angels and original sin have left us today. In real matters of human nature, there really is nothing new under the sun.
Childrens’ eyes see thru every hypocrisy and weak, self-serving argument sooner or later. Like night-after-day, we see the bitterness that follows from being misled – intentionally and otherwise. This always leads to a backlash and mass migration to any “other” belief or belief system that seems to better serve our immediate needs & wants… or, in politics, seems “the lesser of evils”.
And low and behold, we always seem surprised by this!
Keep up the conversation. Best Regards, Michael
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter whether “canals never were on Mars” or not.
For around a century, there was a general belief that canals WERE on Mars, and a lot of the idioms reflected that. If Barth’s quote dates from the period before the Mariner photos, he was just reflecting the general belief of the time and using an image from that general belief to make his point.
LikeLike
Let me point out the elephant in the room. Christians can absolutely forget about ever being taken seriously by intellectuals as long as they reject evolution. You might as well reject the multiplication tables. It happened. Nobody cares about your theological objections because they exist only in your own heads. Go ahead. Cling to literal inerrancy while everyone else rejects the Bible in toto. It’s like standing on the Titanic loudly proclaiming that everybody else has their life jackets fastened wrong and you’re not leaving until you get yours right.
Is rejection of evolution a Satanic plot to marginalize Christianity? Let’s see: get Christians worked up over something that is not a threat, get them on the wrong side of the facts so the only way they can justify their position is through dishonesty, appeal to their pride so they can’t admit they were wrong, and convince them that academia is against them so they stay away from science. And simultaneously make them ridiculous in the eyes of intelligent nonbelievers. Could there be a better way to destroy Christianity?
I have been thinking about the fact that things lately are just not going Christians’ way. We have lost the blessing. God has spit us out of his mouth. People have the nerve to criticize Obama for mentioning religion, because he’s exposing Christians for the unscriptural phonies they are. How many Christians call for harassing immigrants, ignoring the injunction to treat the alien no differently from your own people? Let’s cut taxes by cutting services, and rely on charities to do the job. I’ll tithe the savings and keep the other 90 per cent. Do Christians really think God is that stupid? Is it possible Obama won on a platform of health care because James was right when he said “If you know something is right and don’t do it, it is sin?”
I recently heard the chaplain of a local Chi Alpha chapter lament that kids go to college and are told that they’ve been lied to. I wanted to stand up and ask “Is not lying to them on the table?” They only need a couple of lectures in a comparative religions class to figure out that all the stuff they hear from the pulpit about how evil other religions are is evil itself. I have heard more than one missionary refer to Allah as a false god, blissfully unaware that Arabic Bibles (for the 15-20 million Arabic speaking Christians) use Allah to refer to God. Do we actually think ignorant people like this can possibly have anything useful to contribute as missionaries?
LikeLike
It’s a paradox for me that those that are screaming the loudest about Jesus, those that are proclaiming to know the ONLY route to heaven are also the ones that seem to be practicing the teachings the least. They frequently come across as the least forgiving, most hateful and certainly the least Christian of them all. The fact is that most of the philosophies about right and wrong, caring for your neighbor, etc. all existed long before any concept of Christianity took root and the fact that early designers of these religions embraced these concepts doesn’t mean that non-believers are missing these concepts in their lives as frequently seems to be asserted. Between the hijacking of modern Christianity with a push toward a Taliban-like mentality of hate, intolerance and support of violence against non-believers (such as Muslims under the guise of spreading democracy), it’s no surprise many are thinking – we’ll if that’s what it’s all about, it that’s what their God represents, I don’t want to belong. By the way, I was raised in a traditional Christian American household.
LikeLike
Evangelical protestantism has nothing on traditional Catholicism for complexity; your post really struck a chord for me, as “losing my faith” in Catholicism had a lot to do with being tired of how demanding, fearful, and petty it was. Of course, the Church has changed some since my childhood, so I don’t know how young Catholics feel now. But for me, becoming non-religious was a great relief.
There are many other religious alternatives out there for people, not just Evangelical protestantism vs. atheism. I eventually became a religious universalist (there is some truth in all religions); and feel free to read Christian, Buddhist, etc. and non-religious philosophy for inspiration, without religious fears. Some of the most inspirational devotional poetry I’ve ever seen is Hindu. If Evangelical kids were allowed to be exposed to the larger religious world out there, maybe they wouldn’t feel as though atheism is their only choice.
LikeLike
I find it interesting, albeit scary, that you would discuss a loophole in your brain-washing of your youth. You’ve already resorted to home schooling them so they cannot learn the truth of their situation, now you are worried that one of your own might see the light and spread that light through the flock. What kind of religion is it where you must hold your people prisoner and consider spies to find out if they are thinking on their own or following your rule. Human children are not like dogs, they can see that adult actions and words are hypocritical.
It is not easier to be an Atheist. Unlike many religious people, we are not forgiven by some minister pretending to have a communication channel to God. We must suffer our sins and try to make up for them and live as best as we can, assuming we are a person with a conscious. We cannot live a double standard, we must live the way that we think is right. We must either face bigotry from our Evangelical neighbors or co-workers or pretend like we are not Atheists because they will ostracize you if they find out. Do you know how sickening that is to be untrue to yourself? To an Atheist, ministers look like swindlers with a golden tongue, taking money from lost souls who need guidance. An Atheist might see a minister simply as a person who craves power over others and this is an easy way for a loser to acquire power. Let us hope and pray that more youth see the light.
LikeLike
Great article. It is telling I’ve heard of all the atheist authors on your list, but none of the evangelicals, the face of Christianity is brought to atheists like myself by the most popular religious figures in the media. Over the broad spectrum of Christianity. The names that come easily to mind are Jimmy Swaggart, Fred Phelps, Pope Benedict, and the things we’re most likely to hear are the scandals that follow them.
I think what appears to atheists (rightly or wrongly) as the War on Gays has been a really bad bit of marketing–it is one of the few contexts were we hear Christianity invoked in the media these days, and antagonism to what I might term “equal protection under the law” for LGBT Americans is an incredible turnoff, particularly when it is the primary thing we see Christians trying to accomplish in this country.
I fully recognize that “the gay” is NOT the primary theme of Christianity, nor a primary focus of most American Christian lives. But it is the primary message that’s getting out to the rest of the world, and you might want to take a closer look at where that perception comes from.
LikeLike
Regarding * = Sorry man, but as Christians, we have done that to ourselves. Can’t blame the president for speaking the truth.
LikeLike
Olivia,
I am so sorry to hear of your experiences in & out of the church. It seems like for every 1 “real” christian that you hear about, there are 10 who act in a similar way that your ex-husband did. It was because of this same dichotomy in my experience with Christians that it took me so long to actually become one. However, over a period of many years, I began to realize that no matter how “Christian” people act, they are still human and are prone to royal screw-ups. But, where I messed up was that I was basing Christianity on Jesus’ followers and not on Jesus himself. Way too often these are two very different things, and none of which is Jesus’s fault. I hope that this does not come across as judgmental or trivializing your experience, and if it does then please accept my sincerest apologies. I just hoped it would help. God bless you.
LikeLike
Saying that the debate isn’t about arguments anymore is a good way to try and wiggle your way out of having crappy arguments.
LikeLike
This article is right on for a quiet part of the debate. The vast majority of the reasons why I decided to let go of any type of faith has to do with the evangelical side of all the arguments. In addition to just general disbelief in a higher divine authority for us, I thought often growing up that evangelicals as a whole are far too hateful to actually be following the teaching of Jesus.
I’m going to forward this on to my friends on both sides of the divide.
LikeLike
The god / no god debate appears to the restricted to the US and the third world. The rest of the world has moved on from believing in invisible sky fairies.
LikeLike
“I’m convinced the game is not primarily about arguments any more.”
I have discovered the contrary in my experiences on myspace debates.
LikeLike
This is the same old message. Keep people involved in the message by concocting a threat from the godless. What we must all remember is that atheists don’t organize like religions do – we are, in general, not joiners. You pick a point in time arbitrarily close to the present to start listing off atheists. But we’ve been around a lot longer than Christians have. And we will always be here. When there is enough social pressure we will admit to believing whatever we are required to believe (“He who hid well lived well” -Descartes). That we live in a society open enough for people to say in public that they believe in no god should be a testament to the ideals of democracy and free expression. But you see it as a threat. Or would have others see it as a threat. To what end? You say minister to the people, but we both know what that means. Minister via government. Minister in the streets, in the workplace, in the home. Religions cannot allow dissent, otherwise why would you care what god I worship any more than what brand of peanut butter I choose? So go on and discuss tactics in your game of social control. You will never know me by what you force me to say.
LikeLike
Ed – I think your post contains a freudian slip. As an atheist I DO want to tackle the “problem of evil”. You are equating atheism with nihilism. Regurgitating Dawkins, plenty of bad people in history were religious. Some were Atheist. I am interested in why you assume those who do not put their faith in an all-powerful being, for which there is no physical evidence, lack the vision to see all of the bad taking place in the world, and a subsequent desire to stop said evil? – I am truly interested in your reply.
LikeLike
God is as real as Santa Claus. Both of them tell little kids that if you behave yourself now, you’ll be rewarded later. They are control systems and baby sitters. At the age of 8 I figured out that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy weren’t real. I had already figured out that God wasn’t real, but giving up Santa and the Tooth Fairy was a lot harder because at least they left tangible rewards in this life, even if it was just my parents sneaking around at night.
You’re older than 8. You need to grow up now and put aside childish things like belief in magical all-knowing figures. Time to learn self-discipline and responsibility, so you can behave yourself without the need for shadowy father-figures.
LikeLike
Saying that I’m an Atheist because it’s easier is as insulting as it is incorrect. I was a believer for many years in my youth. Then, when parables from bronze age mythologies failed to answer any questions for me satisfactorily, I began searching for answers. I found them in science.
It is not “easy” to become an atheist. Think about it – one day you believe in everlasting life after death if you do the right things according to mythology and the next you realize this is not so. This can be quite the shock and is not “easy” for many people who have left faith behind for actual knowledge of how the universe works.
Your apologetic attitude is betrayed by the fact you attribute atheism to some attitude of making things easier on oneself. In fact, I would say the opposite is true – it’s a heck of a lot easier to believe you are some special being living on god’s little footstool that gets a super-duper prize at death as long as you believe what your bible tells you to (which is actually nothing – the niacine council is more responsible for your belief than you realize).
Your insult was underhanded. If you want to say you believe people are atheists because they are lazy, fine. But do so clearly and allow yourself to be criticized for it, as you should be. It is a ridiculous and baseless argument.
LikeLike
The debate between atheism and fundamentalism won’t be resolved until believers find a scientific basis for their belief. Until then, they will need to resort to politics, the volume knob, and squat opinionation for their response. And, well, what is the laboratory of religion? It is the human body. And what are the lab tools? Prayer and meditation. And what is the “proof”? It is direct, personal experience of God – as His many qualities: joy, love, bliss, light, power, sound, etc. (all mentioned in the Bible). The problem is, too many evangelicals are entirely outwardly directed in their religion. It lacks persuasive power because it is about reason, logic, proof-texting, etc. Whereas, what truly persuades people is direct experience – which is not of the mind, but of the heart. A wise person once said that the dogmatic tendency increases in direct proportion to a person’s inability to prove his point. Certainly true of evangelicals. On the other hand, I’ve known people of faith who didn’t need to shout, politicize, or squint squatly, because they had the experience of God and Christ. You could feel Christ in their presence. But, of course, far better to feel it for yourself. Unfortunately, I’ve also known evangelicals who believe that the effort to experience God and Christ personally and directly is “satanic,” “evil,” “heathen,” etc. What crap. Is God nothing?
LikeLike
When I was a kid the Evangelicals promised that all Hindus, Muslims, and other non-Christians were going to go to hell, no questions asked. If those Evangelicals were so wrong about so much, why should I believe that the current crop has all the answers?
LikeLike
I must have missed the evangelical Christians “squalling” against the president from the years 2001-2008. When America truly needed a religious voice for moral truth and against evil, you were nowhere to be found.
LikeLike
One point I do not see mentioned is that atheists have become very good at making Christians look like “the bad guys”. When on one side you have the homosexual lobby saying, “We are just like anyone else and all we want is to love and be loved. God made us, we are homosexual, so God made us this way” and on the other side you have Jerry Falwell saying that homosexuals caused Hurricane Katrina it is easy to see who looks like the evil ones*. Another point the author of this article misses is that sin has become equated with “fun” and Christianity has become equated with “not fun”. Sexual intercourse is pleasurable so no one wants to be told/admit that it has serious consequences (which is why it should be saved for a serious, lifetime commitment with another person). The generation that came of age in the 1960’s and 70’s put forth the selfish concept that as long as it feels good to me, it should be allowed. The thoughts, feelings and needs of the rest of society comes second. So why should the government tell me who I can have sex with, what substances I can put into my body and what I buy or sell? Unless, of course, I get an STD, pregnant, addicted or busted. Then the government is supposed to take care of my problems for me.
This is a very good article. I fear this country is truly going to hell in a handbasket and it will get much worse before it gets any better.
*As someone born in 1960, I came of age in the 1970’s and mocked Christians and “religious nuts”. I never, in my wildest dreams, imagined that this country would get to a point where being a Christian is something to be despised and ridiculed. We Christians have allowed the mass media to turn us into parodies, allowed the unbelievers to make us look like petty and unfeeling oafs, and allowed liberal politicians (like President Obama) to say that “the fundamentalists have hijacked religion for their own purposes” (paraphrased from a pre-election campaign speech).
LikeLike
My favorite response that made me leave my church was when i asked about the Trinity… “It’s too complicated for you to understand” was the response I got. “Just wait until you’re older and it will reveal itself to you when you are ready”.
I was immediately put off and forced to look for myself…and what I found made me an Atheist for a time.
LikeLike
I grew up a normal Christian, the old fashioned kind that wanted to treat your neighbor as you wanted to be treated yourself and that helping the needy was a good thing. As an American, we respected other people’s religion, even showed polite interest. We used to make fun of the Evangelicals, those hicks gathering in their big tents, pretending like they were talking in tongues and getting all hot for Jesus. That was so foolish of us, they are in larger and larger numbers now. And, as this article suggests, they are in some sort of competition to win something. I think they are trying to hijack the US so they can pull a Hitler thing someday and get rid of the non-Evangelicals. Won’t those real Republicans, the ones that are just trying to get deregulation of big businesses, be surprised when they find out they are part of the Evil Empire trying to destroy the free America and bomb us back to the dark ages.
If you just practiced your religion without trying to force it on other people, then maybe you would not look so ugly, selfish and scary to everyone else. You are doing the devils work, which is fine, we are free in America to do that, but don’t get all weepy when some smart youth see you for what you are.
LikeLike
I am an agnostic who was raised as an evangelical Christian. All the way through college and my first marriage, I attended evangelical churches and worked fervently on my faith. You are completely correct when you say that “evangelicals have made such outrageous assumptions and promises about happiness, healing, everything working out, knowing God, answered prayer, loving one another and so on that proving us to be liars isn’t even a real job.” My life had been miserable since I started it and despite going to church with or without my single mom for my whole life, I was never allowed to fit in. I was never good enough for them. The only time I did fit in was when I was at college and I went to church with a bunch of other college students…we were all from the same place at that point, so we were all accepted as a group. But you can bet that when I had to move 40 miles away and my boyfriend of 2 years (who also went to the same church) and I broke up, not one single person who I had developed a relationship with in that church ever called me. The same thing when my marriage to the worship leader at our church ended. He told them I was a harlot and I was ostrasized, even though he was the one who did the sinful things. Before I finally broke down and left him, I was told to pray for him, and God would change him into the husband God wanted him to be. Well, I guess my prayers just weren’t good enough, and this “loving” community abandoned me again.
Since I’ve let go of all of it; religion, God, worrying constantly about hell, worrying about my friends and family going to hell, trying to be worhty, etc, etc…I’ve lost 60 pounds, gotten into the only healthy relationship I’ve been in my whole life, made true friends (genuine people who I don’t have to impress with my piety), and have minimal stress. I was tired of being dysfunctional and influenced by dysfunctional people. I guess if being a functional adult is the pathway to hell, so be it. You say that people become athiests because it’s easier…well, if you were in an abusive relationship and the “easier” thing was to just walk away…wouldn’t you do it?
LikeLike
Hello,
I’m an atheist who wandered here from fark.com and found your thesis interesting enough that I’ll likely be reading the rest of the site during the next few days when I have free time.
I’ve been on the receiving end of being the atheist in the family/workplace. Unwillingly, as I’ve not had a need to evangelize once I got past my stance of “anti-theist” (my term, meaning I was against God) to being an atheist, but the need for some Christians to heavily evangelize does get tiresome at times.
One thing I’m not seeing here, and I may be missing it, is the approach to be taken regarding us atheists. I’m all for a live and let live approach. I don’t want to close any church doors or shut down school prayer groups or other things I’ve been accused of. I don’t necessarily know if there really is any approach that can be taken just due to the base concept of the Great Commission, but I’d like to hear more, and may well find some set of answers while looking through your site.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I found this article interesting, and I hope the rest of the site is as interesting.
Be well,
Richard
LikeLike
If people’s experiences render arguments useless then why does Paul throughout the book of Acts constantly appeal to arguments?
Jesus, with much wisdom and skill would defuse arguments from the opposition and offer counter-arguments.
The fact that it is ‘easier’ to attack then to defend does not imply that arguments are obsolete. What is an argument but a declaration.
I think that there are several issues at work in the rise of atheism.
1. People have always looked for a means of justifying their unbelief.
2. Atheism has become the latest fad. It has become a novelty.
3. Atheism has garnished enough academic support to appease unbeliever’s consciences.
4. There is enough moral capital to make it seem socially respectable.
5. Too many Christians have retreated from the intellectual arena.
6. Of course modernism also plays a large role.
7. Lack of spiritual leadership. The image factor doesn’t exactly help the matter. Many Christians (leaders included) have fallen prey to porn for example. How can a man preach the word with a guilty conscience? How can he address the needs of his local congregation if he can’t even see straight?
8. Sunday school and Sunday evening services have become a thing of the past. Both are critical for spiritual formation of the heart, mind and body.
9. Whatever happened to the prayer meeting?
10. Finally, the absence of believers filled with the presence of God.
LikeLike
Ross,
As an evangelical to Catholic, I can say that the same thing seems to be true in Catholicism. I will give the evangelicals some points for having a program for adult education; most Catholics stop after confirmation.
LikeLike
Ken Stoll:
“I have noticed that atheists can get pretty ugly too but since there is no God that’s okay for them I suppose?”
Please be careful of comments like this. You probably don’t realize both how common that sentiment is and how profoundly disrespectful it is to sincere atheists. It is only certain Christians (or theists) who believe that if there is no god then morality and behavior don’t matter. Atheists do not claim this. And when you make comments like that you are implying that by the very nature of their beliefs, a whole category of people are incapable of morality or love or kindness. That is a very dehumanizing sentiment from someone who likely also believes that these people were created in the image of God.
Maybe you don’t really mean this and were just being snarky because of the “ugliness” you’ve seen in certain atheists. But you should know that this kind of sarcastic dismissal is something that atheists / skeptics hear sincerely all the time, and it does not help your cause.
LikeLike
Heather… only God and Ricky know the emptiness in his life, that is if he has any. I guess I could be clearer. We can smile and laugh and be as empty on the inside as a tin can, that’s a part of what I was saying. I’m not sure I was saying he disrespects his mother, I’m talking about the laughs of others. Let them laugh. It’s all good. I laugh too. What I am trying to say is that there is a bit of mockery that goes on when it comes to those who follow this fairy tale Jesus. That’s okay. Jesus was mocked, why would those who are silly enough to identify with such a nut job expect anything less?
Not sure I said it will happen Unicorn Guy, but maybe it sounded that way. I am merely suggesting that it can happen, stranger things have. Men and woman much more vocal about any resistance or unbelief have changed their mind. If I sounded smug please forgive me, I have plenty of pride to deal with of my own when my only response should be gratitude, I obviously still need the reminding, so thanks for pointing that out. The discussion about God that morphs into talk about Jesus seems to always get a bit more snark–he’s a controversial figure I find–and rightly so I think, he claimed to be God for goodness sakes. If he wasn’t God, he was what Lewis called a “lunatic” for certain.
LikeLike
Anna A and Helen,
Why wouldn’t that parent go to the bottom with the drug addicted child?
If God isn’t willing to do that… if the so-called “Hound of Heaven” will eventually give up on the trail…
LikeLike
That analogy only goes so far, though. It’s one thing to say that hell is a voluntary separation from God. It’s another to say that it is eternal and unescapable. If hell was like Lewis’ “Great Divorce,” a deliberate fleeing from God that still allowed the possibility of repentance, then yes, I agree with your analogy, but that’s not the kind of hell most (especially evangelical) churches teach.
In your analogy: if my kid was caught in drug addiction, I would do my best to help but I would also have to acknowledge, at some point, that I can’t FORCE them to do the right thing and that real recovery depends on them voluntarily accepting help. Fine, that is The Great Divorce. But the more typical evangelical hell is more like my walking into my child’s room, seeing them dying of an overdose, and deciding “I’ve done all I can, I guess we’re really separated now” and refusing to dial 911.
And that’s on top of the problems with comparing chemical addiction to what, for many, would be a sincere mistake. If I died and woke up with God standing there in front of me, it would take me about 1 second to decide I’d been wrong about everything about the universe, and to beg forgiveness on my knees. If God then said “Well, I know you did your best to seek the truth, but you guessed wrong” and sent me to hell, I think that would say some unflattering things about that god’s mercy and unconditional love. That’s not about saving me from hurting myself.
Like I said earlier, I know not all Christians believe in this concept of God and hell. But if you have a different take on eternal punishment you should be very clear about that when skeptics ask about it, because Dante’s concept of eternal-torture-for-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me is strongly embedded in popular culture and in a disturbing number of churches.
LikeLike
My father sees social justice programs, like soup kitchens, as a slippery slope into competitive works based lifestyle. There’s simply no place for it in a life based around bible study, proper teaching, prayer, and moral living.
More results of the divorce between the Social Gospel (a gospel of social works without personal salvation) and its Fundie backlash (a gospel of Personal Salvation and ONLY Personal Salvation). Both are equally out-of-balance, just in opposite directions. What prevents him (or you) from doing BOTH?
LikeLike
That’s the behavior of someone with serious doubts themselves, trying to stifle those doubts through more and more Faith Faith Faith and Devotion Devotion Devotion. Keep up the glitz and hype and frenzy 24/7/365 so you never have to face it.
LikeLike
“Our team looks good to us. Trust me, they don’t look that good to atheists.â€
Nobody is conscious of their own blind spots.
That’s why they’re called Blind Spots.
LikeLike
Michael, your post has provided an interesting glimpse into this postmodern, therapeutic culture of ours. And of course no atheism vs theism debate would be complete without the misapplication of Occam’s razor, as learned from Jody Foster in Contact: there is no god is way “simpler†than trying to tackle, say, the problem of evil.
LikeLike
Sounds like we’ve got a lot of arrested-development cases walking around, stuck in Stage 1.
LikeLike
Who can say that the successful Gervais who has the world by the tail right now, as the audience laughs, won’t hit a wall in life—or be drunk all alone in a hotel room one night and remember the love of his stupid mother?
God will have the last word. And his word is always that—the last word. — Ken Stoll
That sounds like a thousand sermons I’ve heard, as well as the plot of a LOT of Billy Graham movies and most all Conventional Christian Fiction. A fanfic retelling of the middle part of the Prodigal Son.
Stepping back and looking at it from a distance, it’s actually pretty smug — “It’ll Happen! See? See? I’ll Show You! I’ll Show You!”
LikeLike
it gets ugly yes. But the ugliness isn’t limited to religious people. I have noticed that atheists can get pretty ugly too but since there is no God that’s okay for them I suppose?.
I have a met enough religious folks in my lifetime who are nothing other than just that. Christians and religious people are 2 entirely different sets of people. Many religious folks call themselves “Christians” but ought to stick to calling themselves what they are. What I think people tend to forget is that there could still be a God even if we weren’t sitting around arguing about his existence, and talking about how because of Christians, no one believes in God. It’s an easy way out. Discussing whether God truly does exists can be done between a Muslim and a simple hippy really—so called “Christians” and atheists just do so much fighting about it that we tend to forget that.
I understood your cartoon, hope you know that I wasn’t taking shots at you. But I hear a lot of folks talk about how God hates gays and this people and that people… Christianity asserts something much different: God loves sinners enough (and my sin is no less wrong than the next guys) to send his one and only son to die a brutal and undeserved death on a shameful cross in my place… Call that what you like, but that’s what orthodox Christianity teaches. I just know I was blind and now I see. It’s not for me to be God’s defense attorney, what kind of God needs one of those? God has his own mysterious ways of showing himself to the the skeptics and the haters (I speak from personal experience).
LikeLike
I’m wondering if the attitude you’re describing (being an atheist is just _easier_) correlates with this Wired article: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/17-03/mf_netbooks
I read about it in music discussions all the time… how the music kids listen to isn’t as audibly faithful to the originals as CDs or even LPs. People opt for convenience over quality.
I think these two topics are related. And the only way to solve it is to create hunger for the original qualities that can’t be compressed, that are worth the extra “work”.
my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Nice post….and welcome back.
Greg R
LikeLike
For Christians seeking new members, this makes your task easier: you don’t have to logically persuade anybody. Just give people a reason to want to belong, and make them feel welcome.
This can be very compelling for people; however, many atheists would not want to feel like hypocrites and would not attend worship services where they are expected to state a belief they do not have no matter how friendly and welcoming the community is.
I miss being with the people in the church community I used to belong to, but I can’t go back and sing songs I don’t mean, pray to a God whose existence I question and listen to sermons assuming I am under the authority of a book which I no longer believe authoritative (albeit interesting and with some value).
LikeLike
You seem to be assuming a great emptiness in Ricky Gervais’ life – which Christian evangelical teaching often seems to assume about successful nonbelievers. The assumption is made that they are dependent on fickle things – material wealth, the approval of others – for happiness and one day that will fail them.
However Ricky Gervais in the clip demonstrated having other values by his comments about how Jesus was kind and brave. Also he is a comedian and I don’t think him sharing his story of becoming an atheist in a humorous way necessarily implies a real lack of respect for his mother or a lack of appreciation of her love.
Despite the Christian teaching about the deep down emptiness of nonbelievers’ lives I think many nonbelievers are as happy as believers. Suffering can come to any of us but nonbelievers have nonbeliever ways of dealing with it and wouldn’t necessarily become any less nonbelieving just because a crisis hits.
I have heard testimonies of how people became believers in a crisis so of course I wouldn’t say it never happens. Rather, I don’t think you can assume that’s how a given nonbeliever would react to a crisis or that his/her life has a deep down emptiness.
Notwithstanding the above, if Ricky Gervais does become a Christian one day feel free to come and tell me “I told you so!” 🙂
LikeLike
John M, I do think many (most?) atheists care about how they live their lives – they have standards and want to live up to them and they know they don’t always achieve that.
However, there are various reasons such atheists would still not find Christian salvation compelling.
First, it is predicated on Total Depravity/God’s need for perfect humans. Atheists tend to have a balanced view of humans, seeing them as capable of good and evil. That they are totally depraved doesn’t seem to fit reality; and besides, why would God require humans to be perfect? If God exists and does require that then surely that is his problem and why should atheists be grateful for him solving a problem of his own making?
And as imonk pointed out, there is no need for salvation if God doesn’t exist.
Also, if you say to an atheist, “Wouldn’t you like to live a better life?” they are likely to say that according to their observations, “saved Christians” don’t live noticeably better lives than any other people.
Living a better life generally involves changing habits, which is something atheists can attempt without being saved.
LikeLike
You’re welcome, Daniel.
LikeLike
Will S, thanks for your reply. I understood imonk’s comments like David S did.
LikeLike
And a non trivial number of Evangelical churches deliberately stop at a child’s level. I think it goes with the “youth” phase that many churches and denoms have created. They’ve discovered that if you make growing up in the church (and also out of it) nothing but fun, they never want to “grow up”. So they are stuck making church a fun place for older and older kids.
And they can’t figure out how to stop the train. And many don’t even think there’s an issue.
LikeLike
Helen,
IF God’s love is conditional, then I’m with Justin; get me out of here.
BUT, if a human parent, after trying all the things that they know how to do, to save their child from drug abuse, finally lets them go to whatever bottom is needed for them to try to get help, then why can’t God who is Love completely and fully do the same to us, his children.
I’m not saying that it is easy for God to do so, but only that He could.
Peace
LikeLike
What do you say to someone who admits they’re lying to themselves? It’s not often someone admits it though, the honesty is refreshing.
LikeLike
Will S:
My reading of it was more like Helen’s, I think. What I understood imonk to be saying wasn’t “Everyone who reaches a different conclusion from me is ignoring the facts,” but that this debate is not won or lost, in EITHER direction, based on the facts. Which I think is true, and sounds less condescending to the people you’re trying to connect with.
I don’t think most people accept any religious belief, including Christianity, based primarily on an objective, sterile factual analysis, at the conclusion of which they commit their life and their emotions. There’s always more to it than that. That doesn’t mean Christians are avoiding the facts, and it doesn’t mean that the facts aren’t important, it means the primary emphasis (again, in both directions) should be on forming loving connections to people as actual human beings.
The worst situation to be in here is one a friend of mine faced: he loved debate and he knew all the logical arguments. He kept at one non-Christian, refuting all objections, until the other person conceded that he had answered all their arguments and they couldn’t find any holes in his reasoning. But they still didn’t want to be Christian, because they were face to face with what that meant on a human level and they disliked it. That person wasn’t “avoiding the facts,” they were choosing to focus on the very real and undeniable fact that my friend was (unfortunately, though I hope he learned his lesson) pushy, rude and unpleasant. Next to that, the metaphysical arguments are so much sophistry.
LikeLike
Fair enough, Hitchens is also my least favorite of the current atheist rock stars… and back when I was Christian I wasn’t too impressed by “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.” But if you take the best arguments that each side has to offer in the way of logical debate, I think they will appear to be simplistic or missing the point to 90% of the other side.
LikeLike
My point, which seemed obvious to me but obviously wasn’t to others, was that canals were never on Mars. And people with even a casual interest in real astronomy have known it for decades. And to get back to the point of this post, when people use bogus examples tied to a Christian theme, many of us turn them off before they can get their message across. Why listen to someone using bogus examples to make their point?
And yes I was a fan of “John Carter of Mars” in my youth in the 60s. But I knew it was pure fantasy based on a non existent civilization that built non existent canals.
My philosophy is “If you’re going to defend the faith with secular examples, may sure they are real.”
LikeLike
I have no idea what a positivist is.
I don’t believe there are good reasons to believe Zeus, Poseidon, Vishnu or any other gods actually exist. You said something about atheists having to avoid facts. What facts are you avoiding when dismissing Vishnu and Zeus?
LikeLike
Helen. Maybe I misread him. Wasn’t his whole point that many (or was it most) atheists are not becoming atheists due to facts? Am I wrong to call that avoiding facts or would you prefer it be put another way. I was certainly not trying to be offensive.
LikeLike
That may be, but a lot of Christians do not. And it shows, sometimes really ugly.
LikeLike
I don’t know. I don’t know who you are. I know that Christopher Hitchens avoids the fact that Positivism has been dead for twenty years. Are you a positivist?
LikeLike
There are three creeds that are known as the ecumenical creeds, meaning that they have a universal acceptance. They are the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. The Reformers of the 16th century accepted these creeds, and they are included in confessional writings as faithful expositions of Holy Scripture.
LikeLike
I think I agree…with the clarification that a person’s “story” includes their personal experiences, inclinations, reactions to environmental stimuli, etc,.
So for example, I can recognize that people who have something that they recognize as a spiritual experience and an inclination to say that that spiritual experience came from God will naturally have a “story” that more prone to theism. And I can’t blame them for that. Arguments won’t work.
I just think that theists should realize that atheists, of course, have different experiences and inclinations. So that’s why arguments don’t work.
LikeLike
I don’t know if Michael will let this through, and I understand why if he doesn’t. I just wanted to talk about what ‘reasons’ are. Because if the proof you are seeking is based only on your own reasoning powers, then your atheism can be justified in spite of all reasoning to the contrary just as my Christianity can be.
Aristotle and his followers showed what happens when you try to base a science or philosophy on reason and theory alone. At some point you have to look at the actual practice. You have to see if your impeccable ‘reasons’ are borne out in reality. If my Christianity gives me hope, gives me self-control, gives me love for people around me, gives me something to live for, then it doesn’t matter how ‘reasonable’ atheism is, because being a rational human being obviously isn’t winning me any points.
I have no reason to believe Jesus ever lived, much less died and rose again. I have no reason to believe I am not a product of a chaotic, uncaring, godless universe. I have no ‘reasons’ why I rejected atheism. I only have the fact that my life was unbearable when I didn’t have God, and I would rather live a beautiful lie that brings me nothing but good than live a truth that brings me nothing at all.
So you see, trying to share our beautiful lie with those around us isn’t a game. Rather, trying to share this power, whether it is based in truth or lie, is the most loving thing we know to do for those we care about.
-Peace
LikeLike
John M,
If atheists do desire salvation, then this kind of salvation is not really the same as the Christian salvation. For example, the solution to your scenario, “humans don’t live their life as beautifully as they wish, do they?” (and all of the examples of how this is so) is not to believe in a mystical being who many do not experience.
Rather, this is how you get a kind of secular humanism — if we want to improve our world, then it’s up to us. Heaven and religion is seen as “running away” from real world problems in this case (and that’s another way you alienate). It’s not about “being changed” (which implies that something else shadowy and unknown does the changing)…but rather it’s about us changing ourselves (an active role). Where, again, do traditional Christian ideas of salvation and grace fit here?
Be careful about what happens when you divorce the supernatural aspects of Christianity from the “general good advice” parts. Because atheists would probably point out that many aspects of the Bible (New or Old) could be scrapped in this case, and aspects of other books could be adopted. Your scenario may create good people who try to be ethical and moral, but it doesn’t necessarily create Christians. The connect is that people do not see how Christianity fits into the picture, since you can be ethical and moral without believing in the supernatural aspects…
LikeLike
I’ve run into this on occasion – not often, because I don’t evangelize, but i remember one time when I involved my church in getting some formula to a sick baby in Russia. Afterwards, one of the students who had helped raise money for the project came to ask me about my religion. She wanted to know how I could belong to a religion that was so cruel to gay people.
Perhaps the most productive thing christians can do in this situation is to just shut up for eight or ten years.
LikeLike
Might there be the desire for elements of salvation form an atheistic view? I mean most humans don’t live their life as beautifully as they wish, do they? Am I wrong that whatever our world view happens to be, we don’t love those we love as well as we wish we did, we don’t break all of our bad habits, we don’t save enough whales, shrink our carbon foot print enough, or make enough money to do all the things we desire.
I understand atheists might not be concerned about an afterlife, but aren’t most of us concerned about our present selves? I guess I can see atheists who might find the notion of salvation (being changed form those aspects of their nature that are harmful) befitting them while they live here and now as attractive. Isn’t that at least a part of what following the man Jesus offers?
I only make this point to answer your question and to affirm a point Andrew made, “Rather, I think what Christians will want to look at is something like: what does Christianity offer that atheism can’t replicate? Salvation is one of these things, but Christians nowadays make a remarkably poor case for the necessity of salvation.”
I don’t think atheists would find much else compelling about the institution of Christianity.
LikeLike
The thing about faith, or the lack thereof, is that it always revolves around a person’s story. And you can’t argue someone out of their own story.
LikeLike
Ah, that would be because I’m not an Evangelical, but an Irish Catholic.
Michael is very tolerant who he lets ramble on here 🙂
LikeLike
Who’s creedal orthodoxy? Barna’s?
LikeLike
I like the comment and generally agree. I will say, however, that even as an atheist, I thought Hitchens’ “God is not great” to mostly be a poorly written, weak set of arguments for anything.
LikeLike
…see I am getting to the dance floor a little late. The game has changed no doubt Michael. But it always does. We are living in a time no different than say J.Gresham Machen, Luther–or even Paul the apostle for that matter. Animosity abounds. The atheists don’t play be “the rules”, but who can blame them, neither does God,
Our youth ministry may be lame, or even have the coolest productions… and we can even be really caring. But the question is, and remains—are people’s eyes opened to the truth revealed in Jesus Christ? A mom might be shown up by a brother who questions the mom’s silly “superstitions”. But if God is half a god, he isn’t limited by some smart ass (no mattter how educated and contemporary he is). A “better way” than what we have to offer can be found at the corner coffee shop any morning of the week. Who can say that the successful Gervais who has the world by the tail right now, as the audience laughs, won’t hit a wall in life—or be drunk all alone in a hotel room one night and remember the love of his stupid mother?
God will have the last word. And his word is always that—the last word.
LikeLike
Thanks for hanging out and talking with us. Practically everyone here can agree that something that American and Americanized Christianity needs right now is to take honest criticism seriously.
LikeLike
Sociologists tell us that people do not convert because, having become convinced that religion X is true, they go seek out religion X. Rather they seek out groups to belong to (humans being social animals) and then believe whatever it is the group believes.
For Christians seeking new members, this makes your task easier: you don’t have to logically persuade anybody. Just give people a reason to want to belong, and make them feel welcome.
One complication arises from the institutional needs of churches and so forth, which constrain how many (and what kinds) of new members may be welcomed. In other words, churches function almost like living organisms, and have their own interests (as do their leaders)–which may or may not be compatible with welcoming everyone into the group.
This gives rise to an interesting paradox for Christians: on one hand, your theology generally holds that everyone ought to be a member. On the other hand, all social groups require boundaries, and churches or religions are no exception. (Each item of the creeds anathematizes some ancient group of dissidents.)
Incidentally, one of the more interesting complaints on the “Friendly Atheist” blog was that liberal Christians (whom many atheists admire) have had no discernible effect on their conservative co-religionists (who are almost universally despised). I suppose the iMonk crowd falls somewhere in the middle.
LikeLike
funny stuff. But I’m not sure God ever said gays, Hindus or atheists had to spend eternity in hell… I think he said sinners like me who don’t end up turning to Christ spend eternity there? Please advise if you know otherwise.
God loves sinners and atheists alike.
LikeLike
Well said.
My experience when talking to reasonable religious people (be it Christian, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or Seek) why they believe their respective beliefs in my experience boils down to:
1) My parents were ______ and I have not seen any reason not to believe in ______ (which shows the person probably has not given much critical introspection into WHY they hold on to their belief(s) other than for the sake of tradition – not very convincing to an outsider)
2) I had a personal revelation (and when pressed, it is never verifiable or falsifiable, thus being only antidotal evidence at best – again not very convincing).
3) I had to convert in order to marry my spouse (which is understandable for that’s person’s household harmony, but not very convincing otherwise to an outsider).
LikeLike
(er, you can probably edit my latest comment to ask: so what is the post-evangelical response? What is *your* response, in particular?)
LikeLike
Precisely, so what’s the Evangelical response?
Will you simply leave atheists to themselves and accept defeat (that is, if evangelizing is one of your goals), or what? How do you show that “No God” is a problem?
This is really the goal for theists. If they/you cannot do this, then no matter what else, there will be atheists.
Personally, I think that theism requires a personal subjective experience to stick (different religions call it something different, but it seems they are referring to something similar). This is not something that theists can invoke in others or tell others how to invoke it reliably and repeatably on their own, and without this peace, it really is the case that no God is no problem.
LikeLike
No, no–there *were* rivers on Mars. Just not artificial canals. And long since dried up.
LikeLike
I talked to a fellow this week who described a friend who went through a long period of deconstructing and, eventually, reconstructing his faith. He came out the other side to find that his wife’s faith was utterly gutted….
Even if one believes that this loss of faith is ultimately better, there’s a form of violence in that sort of unintentional destruction.
LikeLike
“Twenty-five years ago, we had very poor answers for the atheist’s arguments. We’ve come a long way, and need to stay at the front of this game.”
I’m very curious to what new apologetics that have come out in the last 25 years that are not variations on Pascal’s Wager, Cosmological arguements, Ontological arguemnets, Arguements from design, transcendental agument (TAG) or Anthropic arguments?
LikeLike
Clown IS exactly the correct description many atheists view Christians who try to explain their worldview (especially the fundalmentalist type) as. See this:
http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?attachment_id=1074
LikeLike
Will S, I didn’t see imonk say anything remotely as disrespectful as “atheists are avoiding the facts”.
imonk thank you for being very respectful towards atheists in this article.
LikeLike
I am an old school Lutheran (Bible, Book of Concord, the whole bit) but in the past few years I developed an appreciation for Ratzinger. I think it was in the first chapter or two of An Introduction to Christianity where he talks about doubt being inherent to the human condition. Doubt can be a starting point for discussion because most Christians and Atheists have it. I won’t attempt to reconstruct his position on things because I might make mistakes, and, even if I didn’t, he states his arguments more succinctly. A worthwhile read for anyone interested. He realized that a believer sometimes (often?) has a clownish appearance to non-believers: screaming about a terrible disaster that no one else can even see. When people don’t understand, the Christian gets more agitated and shouts all the louder, to the endless amusement or irritation of the audience that cannot see or smell the fire that the clown says is burning and killing people even as he speaks.
LikeLike
Will what facts am I avoiding?
LikeLike
George, On your first point….of course there are always antecedents. The liberal takeover of the early 20th century was preceded by Darwin, Hume, and Nietzsche. My point was that the transition is apparent *now* just as the liberal transition became apparent in the early years of the 20th century. On your second point, we will have to debate that another day. As an exCatholic whose favorite authors are all either Catholic or Anglican I could not disagree more almost every level.
LikeLike
Hi Ted,
I also was converted by an unusual experience/set of events (an unexpected experience that I was not looking for). But when it happened, I realized I had only two choices: God or the other direction. It did not happen from reading the Bible or attending a church service (although in subsequently choosing to become a Christian I started to do these things in order to deepen my faith and connection to God). But trying to explain to others why my “experience” converted me is almost useless. I cannot transplant what I went through into others. Perhaps we are called in different ways, and evidently some of us are not called at all. Who knows. In any case I am at peace with this. Around atheists, I am having less and less shame about disclosing that I am a Christian. But I don’t try to get into arguments. I try to listen to them. I try to affirm whatever is good in them, without endorsing their worldview. And I don’t deny that many aspects of faith, such as miracles, may seem outwardly ridiculous. In fact I still appreciate that feeling. The absurdity is not lost on me. I can indeed sympathize with atheists, although theirs is not the world I believe in anymore. It may be “unbiblical” to say so, but I suspect that the more we can concede areas of our faith that are challenging or uncertain (while remaining nevertheless committed to it), the more people will recognize that we’re actually onto something that approximates the Truth (I say approximates here because I don’t think any of us have it quite right or ever will….)
LikeLike
There are so many reasons why people would prefer atheism to Christianity. You’ve mentioned some good ones. UnChristian describes some others well.
I think many people are atheists because they have trouble believing what Christians believe and/or they don’t find Christians have a compelling answer to ‘Why be a Christian?” Motivation and what worldview reflects reality are both important; maybe in differing degrees to different people.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Sarah.
LikeLike
Thanks David.
LikeLike
Well…exactly 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for your response, Katie. It seems to me that love has no meaning if someone who says they love me would send me to hell. (If that’s love, what’s hate??) And I don’t think people who find they can’t believe in God have rejected God’s love – because if something doesn’t exist then it’s not possible to accept or reject it.
LikeLike
How can you talk to an atheist about salvation? He doesn’t believe in a single component of that worldview. No God. No problem.
LikeLike
*like*
LikeLike
Tom, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. The 80% number comes from a much broader definition of ‘evangelical’. If you take people that have creedal orthodoxy, the real fall away rate is closer to 15%. Additionally, evangelicals (real ones) tend to have a bunch more kids. The world is becoming very Christian very fast.
LikeLike
I would say that in 15-20 years you may be right. I am talking more like 50 to 100. Picture yourself as an academic at the turn of the century when the fundamentalists all left in a huff. No one predicted naked hippies taking LSD in plain sight 60 yrs later but it happened….. Why? Because it looked like philosophy, science, and political theory all pointed to Christianity being a thing of the antiquated past. Roseau made sense in 1960. Does anyone take him seriously today?
No one can look at the world today and say that Christianity is antiquated. Instead, as you have noted, to be an atheist, for most people, requires avoiding the facts and not thinking about the fact that positivism is a self defeating philosophy that was rejected by any one of repute long ago. The situation has shifted……it doesn’t look like it on the ground (I too have spent many a Sunday night talking to youth group students who wrestle with faith and atheism).
LikeLike
I’m not quite getting this whole “Occam’s Razor” thing from the video. I have written a lengthy article on my blog on this article, because while I think you’re closer than most, I also think there are some points that just barely miss the mark.
Like this occam’s razor thing. While the whole, “It’s easier” thing, may be a side dish (because, of course, atheism doesn’t require anything; it is not a comprehensive worldview or belief system, but simply allows you to feel free to pick your own belief system unhindered by a church or a book), I don’t think it’s the main attraction. Rather, the main attraction is nonbelief. It is that for some, it doesn’t make sense. They don’t have spiritual experiences. The way they see the world doesn’t mesh with the way theists and in particular, Evangelical Christians see it. So, I think that some of the ways you describe it are apt, but you’re still giving too little credit to many atheists.
For example, I get this sense that you think, Michael (or do you go by iMonk?) that *if* atheists would spend the time, and if they had the *right* scriptures and *right* sermons and *right* people in their lives, that then they would find that the religion was worth it and get back involved (I’m sure plenty of your readers, some who were former atheists, did just this). However, I think this is an incredibly hopeful statement to say for all.
I agree that if there were more of certain kinds of Christians instead of other kinds, then there would be more respect for Christians as a whole (and less of this angsty anti-theism that we’ve been seeing), but this wouldn’t necessarily make the case for God any more persuasive than it is. As Gervais says, you really can’t believe in something you don’t believe in. And as you noted, to try to force it, to wrap it up with theological and convoluted arguments, etc., will never make sense when the alternative is to let it all go, live a good life, and serve your fellow person.
I think some of your commenters have a good outlook, but some of them…I disagree just a bit more with. But as you said, this isn’t about argument.
Rather, I think what Christians will want to look at is something like: what does Christianity offer that atheism can’t replicate? Salvation is one of these things, but Christians nowadays make a remarkably poor case for the necessity of salvation. One of your commenters here in this thread remarked that Christianity is not about being “good and nice,” but instead about “saving the poor.” If this is so, Christianity has alienated a certain set of people, who can see CLEAR BENEFIT from being good and nice, being accepting of others (even so-called “sinners”), but cannot see clear benefit for the magic, the mysticism, the God narrative, the salvation narrative. And when some Christians live in a way that implies the God and salvation narrative are antithetical to the “be good and nice to each other” narrative (e.g., by focusing on banning gay marriage, for example, or on focusing “salvation” and right belief over right actions [charity and love aren’t monopolies…] and right attitudes [humility and meekness aren’t monopolies…]), I think some people (especially the ones for whom spiritual experiences are out of grasp — for whatever reason, maybe the Holy Ghost is having a bathroom break) will naturally be unconvinced.
LikeLike
I disagree on two points. First, the “transition back to orthodoxy” did not start in the 1990s, it started in the 1950s with neo-evangelicals like Carl F. H. Henry and Harold Ockenga, among others. This movement also included the founding of what were then conservative scholarly institutions such as Fuller.
Second, I disagree that American evangelical Christianity is orthodox. It contains much Enlightenment thought which, from a truly orthodox position, is heresy. The best example of this is the Scottish realist influence, which elevates human noetic capabilities far beyond what classic realism did. Another example is the Protestant “text fetish,” which is very modern. In my view, a good place to begin seeing just how modern — and, in the original sense of the term, secular — American evangelical Christianity has become is to explore more deeply Christianity’s Jewish roots. Jesus was a rabbi. Start there.
I do agree that many evangelicals are well read and that the intellectual quality of many of their arguments has improved since the 1990s. I take them seriously as intellectuals. However, they tend to read each other too much. It is distressing to me how often I meet evangelicals who start talking about some other point of view only later to realize that they’ve only read about that point of view from other evangelicals. The ID folks are bad for that. Too often, most or all of what they know about evolution they’ve learned from other ID writers.
I also agree about the intellectual bankruptcy of theological liberalism. I just don’t think American evangelicals are any less modernist than the liberals. Their rhetoric is, but only their rhetoric.
LikeLike
We aren’t going to have this debate. Nip it in the bud as Barney says.
LikeLike
This thread needs to stop it. Now.
LikeLike
I began your post thinking that you would be proving religion to be by means of Thomas Aquinas (atypical behavior for evangelicals), but…I agree with you.
LikeLike
By “distinguishing” I don’t mean that it is hard to tell you apart from say, Jainism–I mean that Christianity and Jainism seem to me about equally plausible. (A more wicked atheist would introduce the FSM at this point.) In other words, religion is largely a matter of opinion, since we can never really know which of us is right (at least, not before I get thrown into the lake of fire).
Are you seriously claiming that Christians tend to be more compassionate than Jains? (Be careful not to use “Christian” as an honorific, e.g. “Any TRUE Christian would be identifiable through his / her compassion.”)
LikeLike
Lifeway (baptist) research reports 80% of kids from evangelical homes are no longer in church 24 months after leaving home. This thread and post show why.
LikeLike
“…he talked at length on how he just could not understand an athiest, absolutely could not grasp how someone could not believe in God and how silly that mindset was.”
This describes me perfectly!! I thought, ‘There are no such things as Atheists, only God-haters.”
I got saved at age 7; last year at age 35, I suddenly saw things the way atheists see things. Like the original post said, ‘Easier’ ‘Occams Razor’ etc.
I felt nauseous, and cried a lot and wished I hadn’t come to view things the way Atheists do. You can notice in the language I’m using that I can’t bring myself to identify myself as an atheist, but calling myself a Christian feels dishonest of me.
I go to church on occasion, I guess I am hoping for some kind of cure – some way of going back in time, erasing my memory, and thinking like how I used to think. I don’t want to become an Atheist, but I seriously wonder if anyone has a real choice in the matter.
LikeLike
“If you really felt that god existed it’d be the height of stupidity to antagonise him in case the Old Testament accurately reflected his attitude.”
I’ve known people who said the opposite, that if that really is God’s attitude then they would side with Milton’s Satan.
Otherwise I agree, though. It’s far too easy for everyone to make the leap from “I could never believe that” to “You don’t really believe that.” But in this case Christian groups will be the ones to suffer the fallout: the new atheists are offering the younger generation a life of honesty, simplicity and meaning. These are things that Christianity should be able to offer as well (and for many people it does), but this is dangerously underrepresented by the visible church today. And in the you-don’t-really-believe-that game, “I believe in making the most of the here and now” versus “Millennia-old texts say that God wants you to hate your gay friend” isn’t much of a contest for most under-30s. (I’m aware that this is oversimplifying the real discussion — but it is how things come across to a lot of the mainstream right now.)
LikeLike
I doubted God a lot over the past few years, sometimes I felt so awful and frightened. My mom is very strong Christian, but I didn’t want to talk to her about what I was going through because I didn’t want to risk infecting her with my doubts. I don’t feel like I’m a Christian any longer, but I would hate to cause someone else to stop being a Christian.
I’ve seen friends walk away from Christianity, and these were spirit filled leaders whom i never in a million years thought would ever deconvert. Learning of their deconversion made me feel physically sick.
LikeLike
I think you’re in the wrong paradigm as far as evaluating religion. When we’re talking about beings that (conveniently, one might argue) transcend our understanding, anything could go or not go. Can’t be proven or disproven, etc. When I was an atheist I was never all like, “Logic, logic, everloving hell, I just can’t deduce the existence of God. NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER.” I was all like, “You know, looking at my understanding of my world and my understanding of sociology and my understanding of human psychology… it just makes more sense to me that all this God business is nonsense.” My atheism was an act of intuition, a gut feeling. No offense– and maybe this is just a difference in our approaches to things and not that I’m better or smarter or anything like that– but it wasn’t long before all this logic-fetishizing bugged me as much as the Christians did.
None of the Big Five world religions– or atheism or agnosticism– look stupid to me. They all look perfectly coherent, reasonable, and intelligent. They each present varied worldviews, and that’s where they differ and that, IMO, is what we need to keep clear is their basis of evaluation. We adopt our religious or irreligious positions intuitively. Not to say unreasonably, because if we’ve done our homework, our worldviews are cultivated through thinking and critiquing what’s going on around us. But still… get real.
LikeLike
Will S:
I respect your optimism. I expect in about 15-20 years, you are going to find it hard to whistle “always look on the bright side of life.” 🙂
We’ll see who’s right. Cheers.
peace
ms
LikeLike
I think i understand what you are saying. The most powerful thing about Christianity love for one’s enemies. Like Jesus said, so what if you love those who love you? Even the heathens do that.
The key point is that loving one’s enemies isn’t an argument, it’s an action, and one that requires real spiritual power to perform; one simply can’t decide to do it, it requires real power from God. That’s why it is something that is rarely seen, I think its a miracle.
LikeLike
IM…I totally disagree. Christianity lost America when the orthodox profs left the Universities in the early 20th century. The resulting implosion came as a couple generations of people in a row recognized that all the smart people where atheists and marxists. The shoe is starting to be on the other foot now. Evangelicals tend to be more educated and well read. Our scholars are starting to be given positions in Universities again and we have a voice on TV and radio. The tide has turned. It took liberalism about 60 years to expand from a takeover of the Universities to popular culture. The transition back to orthodoxy started in the late 1990s. I predict somewhere around 2050 we are going to see some pretty amazing things going on.
To suggest that truth of argument is anything less than central is to think short term. Think 100 yr petri dish instead. The liberals have no philosophical foundation anymore (with the fall of positivism and the ridiculousness of phenomenalism) and they are losing the historical and scientific debates regularly. Sooner or later that yeast will work its way through the dough.
LikeLike
Actually, willoh, that’s another point.
So many of us have a faith that’s stuck at a seven/twelve/sixteen year old level; we’ve made no effort to, or we haven’t been shown how to, develop an adult faith.
So we hit into the world face-first, and of course our knowledge of what we learned when we were seven isn’t enough. And naturally what we say is “I can’t believe this stuff”. No, because we should be eating solid food and we’re trying to nurture ourselves on sops. So faith gets put aside regretfully, or tossed aside with relief, as a relic of ‘childish things’.
Just as our secular education doesn’t end when we know how to read, write, and count past twenty, our religious education shouldn’t either. But a lot of us don’t bother, or don’t know how, and are getting little or no help from our community, our fellow-Christians, our priests/pastors.
LikeLike
Good song to get the heartbeat of the culture in regards to “causes”. Plus it’s fun.
LikeLike
Also, whoever is suggesting that the Gervaise video is up there as a “poor example” of atheism, far from it. He’s up there as an example of exactly what I’m talking about- a kind of Occam’s razor choice.
LikeLike
I would encourage anyone who has read this post and is about to fall for the invitation to debate an atheist in this space to reconsider. I will moderate all material that is off topic, and atheist/Christian debates are off topic.
Internet debates have done NOTHING for the understanding of either side. Give it a break people. Don’t make me have to set the whole place to moderation.
LikeLike
We call that “invincible ignorance”. It’s kinda complicated, and the good old Catholic Encylopaedia entry isn’t perfectly helpful here, but basically and very roughly:
There are two types of ignorance, vincible and invincible. Invincible ignorance is that ignorance which a person cannot rid himself of, despite reasonable efforts.
If you CAN’T believe the doctrines of Christianity, despite reasonable attempts to inform yourself and understand them, then that’s invincible ignorance and is less culpable than, for instance, deliberately choosing not to check out the facts because you prefer the caricature of Christianity in your head.
God will not, on this reading, condemn you merely for unbelief; the act of the will has to accompany it (deliberately choosing either to scorn faith, despite the possibility of being convinced, or turning away because you DON’T want to believe). That’s based, amongst other things, on Matthew 25:16 (the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats): “Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ ”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm
“For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority… Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does. “
LikeLike
Has the game changed, or are some just learning how to play it? Man is the same as he always was, God the same, the problems of disbelief no different. The fake ,plastic, American Evangelical “God Club” that considered itself the very core of Christ’s Kingdom is finding that they were only successful in deceiving themselves into believing that their little clique was on the right path, and all others lost. To me, coming into the family of Christ 30 years ago from an atheist past, the Evangelistic crowd always seemed fake, and a cult of weirdness. I tried to beat myself into conformity with them, but my head would not fit in the box, and was thrown out of a few churches for thinking.
If Paul’s words,” Come let us reason together” were heeded, the evangelicals would look and act with less silliness, and if Ricky Gervais had a mom who listened to that advice he might not have turned atheist. By the way, i wonder how many other world view and lifestyle decisions Gervais made when he was adolescent that he still holds as true. It seems as if his spiritual development became stunted , pray he will allow it to mature with age.
LikeLike
Katie, I think what Helen was getting at is “If you can’t believe, you are going to hell.” This isn’t a universal Christian teaching, but it’s quite common, and adding the qualification that God still loves you is not comforting to the skeptic in that situation. To someone who has thought about the evidence and come to a sincere belief that there is no God (or that there may be god(s) but not the Christian one), that teaching can feel like being told “shut off your mind and accept this theology anyway because otherwise you will be miserable for all eternity.”
It’s just not the case that everyone who honestly seeks after the truth concludes that Christianity is true. This is a real obstacle to evangelism for the branches of Christianity that teach that unbelief sends you to hell.
LikeLike
No, Helen. I am sure that’s not so. God never stopped loving me even when I didn’t believe and ridiculed the concept of faith. I don’t feel qualified to speak about afterlife stuff. All I know about is the here and now, and I know that God never stopped loving me.
LikeLike
The flip side to your own sides arguments always sounding good is the old “deep down you know in your heart” and again, we both do it.
I’ve seen Christians claim that atheists “know in their heart” that God exists but they wish he didnt. Well what’d be the point of that? I know no such thing. If you really felt that god existed it’d be the height of stupidity to antagonise him in case the Old Testament accurately reflected his attitude.
On the other hand I’ve heard atheists claim that Christians “know in their heart” that it is all a sham, but feel they need to keep up the pretense for some reasoon. Again the reason escapes me.
I’m guessing we both more or less believe what we say we believe. It is just that the other side (whichever that is) is saying they believe something that makes no sense!
Another irony is that both sides can be accussed by the other of being a license for rampant immorality and a fast track to depression and nihilism!
LikeLike
Helen, if what you say is true, then show me the door… I want out.
LikeLike
I think you are correct, RP. I’m…well…in my middle age and when I was a kid, people went to church because that is just what you did. I don’t think half the people there knew why they were there, but they were because that was the cultural norm. Now, it’s ok to not go, so I think people are questioning more and giving themselves the option to not participate if they sense anything false or fake. I don’t think it’s a bad thing, really, because I think it makes all of us delve deeper into why we believe what we do, and even to understand why we don’t believe, if that is the case.
LikeLike
as an atheist I thank you for that TeeDee.
Christianity is to me as Hinduism probably is to most Christians. If you can think of how uncompelling the arguments for Vishnu are you’ll see how Christianity looks to me. Hinduism, Sihkism, Islam, Jainism… they all make extraordinary claims and offer lame or no evidence and thus I cannot believe them even if I wanted to.
LikeLike
“Point to Christ”
Point to Christ? Go ahead, where is he? Or is that just religious mumbo jumbo talk that means nothing?
LikeLike
Christiane,
Anyone that reads your post can ‘see your faith’.
What I’m asking for is honesty. If you have good reasons to believe your religion isn’t a myth then please share them so I can make an informed decision. The fact that you think the best way to convince someone your religion is true is to avoid discussing the facts and evidence and instead use emotional tactics makes me conclude you know the facts aren’t on your side hence the games you play.
LikeLike
testing my gravatar, we will see if it works,
LikeLike
Great post. I completely agree that many churches will be reaping what they have sown in the evangelical circus of the past 20 years.
My comment is on the statement
“Pitt was a kid walking the aisles in Baptist revivals, trying to find God in that mess when he met a Methodist preacher’s daughter who told him it was OK to just say no to it all. He didn’t have to live like that. He could call the torture sessions off and just be himself.”
But is this so different than what we have been seeing for years? People have always walked out of the faith. The main difference I see is the past they stayed in church, giving the occasional offering, attending once a month, and just keeping thier mouth shut about what they really thought. Now they have a more vocal community that says, “None of this has any point. Give it up and go have a coke.†I don’t want to make light of the influence the athiests have made in recent years, and I admit I could be very wrong in this, but my 2 questions are: Are those who had faith really leaving our pews or are the unbelieving just finding better reasons to not hang around?, and Is this entirely a bad thing?
LikeLike
I disagree. I think God loves first, and He loves regardless of how we choose to respond to that love. “For God so loved the world that…..” NOT “For the people believed long and hard enough that God finally decided to love them.” In the end, yes, some people will reject that love, and God will let them do so. Heck, I reject that love every day, every time I sin. (Grace, love? What’s that? I don’t need those. I got this one; I’ll do it my way.) But God still loves me. In fact, He loves me enough to knock me upside the head on occasion.
I think that saying “If you can’t believe, God doesn’t love you,” is probably one of the fastest ways to ensure that any unbelievers you’re talking to stay unbelieving. Also, I would think that there would be a lot of collateral damage among any Christian “innocent bystanders.” And anyhow, if you think that God doesn’t love you because you haven’t screwed up enough intellectual willpower to believe in a God who won’t love you until you do, why would you want to believe in that anyway?
LikeLike
I could say the same thing about all the Progressive Activist (TM) types I ran into in and after college. They had all the arguments, the Intellect, the Rationality, the Reason, the Dialectic, the Cause, and it was all just intellectual masturbation. NO help at all (or even offered) to “somebody who is dying for a hug or handshake”. And Christians are just as prone to intellectual (or more often emotional) masturbation for The Cause.
LikeLike
Ever thought that Christ chose Thomas BECAUSE he was such a hard man to convince?
LikeLike
Even in non-Christian faiths like Judaism and Islam, guilt drives many people to agnosticism or atheism when the primary motivation to faith is guilt. — Patrick Kyle
Except in Islam, they won’t let you quit (Death to Apostates), so when that happens you just go through the external motions.
We have our children †re-dedicate†and walk the aisle over and over again, and you can bet a large percentage will walk away from the faith in their teen years. — Patrick Kyle
This also happens when you become a notch on Bible after Bible due to guilt-based “break down his assurance of salvation and then re-Save His Soul”. After you’re a notch on a dozen Bibles that way, you start wondering if it was all BS from day one.
LikeLike
“Karl Barth said of the church and its dogmas that they are like the canals of Mars – places that show where living water once flowed. Hopefully it can flow again.â€
A really bad example. There never were any canals on Mars. It was an illusion seen by one person or he was making it up or whatever. — Ross
But it was an illusion/misinterpretation that became general knowledge until we actually got hi-res photos of the Martian surface from the Mariner probes. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Barth quote dates from that period before the canals were disproven. The phrasing of “where living water once flowed” sounds like he was working from Lowell’s romanticized vision of Mars as a dying desiccating world, with the canals as artificial attempts to head off the eventual doom. This was the picture of Mars throughout the era of Pulp SF, from Wells to Burroughs to Heinlein to Piper to Space: 1889.
LikeLike
I’m sure IMonk can name a lot of Christians who made themselves into poster children for Sagan’s book. I know I can.
LikeLike
John, in Christianity, God’s love is not unconditional – it’s conditioned on belief/faith. Those who don’t believe go to hell. If you find yourself unable to believe, God’s love is not even an option.
LikeLike
This reminds me of a frustrating conversation I had with a seminary student a few months ago. The subject of athiesm came up and he talked at length on how he just could not understand an athiest, absolutely could not grasp how someone could not believe in God and how silly that mindset was. With that attitude, I doubt he’ll be a very effective preacher, which is too bad, because he is a nice guy. I think you are absolutely correct that most athiests are not awful, angry people; they are just people who, for various reasons, see no point in church. Most athiests I’ve run across are very decent, generous, and caring, and not much different than you or me. Most Christians don’t realize that because they don’t bother to get to know them, but see them only as “projects” to convert.
LikeLike
Bill,
If you have time, try N.T. Wright’s book, “Simply Christian.” I think this is a bit more in tune with the times than some of the others.
And remember that what most people of any age want is to be loved unconditionally. Christianity still pretty much has a monopoly on that one. 🙂
Peace and joy.
LikeLike
Amen!
LikeLike
I don’t understand the video. He is telling a very serious story and the audience is laughing, not just giggling, but actually laughing uproariously. What is that all about?
LikeLike
So true, Todd Erickson, so true. What a well written comment.
LikeLike
I think you hit the nail on the head, Michael. It’s not really primarily about the arguments any more, and maybe it never was for most of the ones we were trying to reach. It’s about the witness that our whole lives and beings represent, and about intelligent and thoughtful presentations of the good news in a compassionate context that cares about people.
I have two teenagers and I can’t really recall the last sermon that actually engaged them or challenged them intellectually or in any other way. Young people are smart and have much less patience for a lot of the nonsense that passes as good teaching and worship in evangelicalism these days.
My daughter recently had a school assignment which asked her to opine whether humans were inherently good or inherently evil, then defend that position. She chose a both/neither position, which made me proud. It tells me we’ve raised them with a balanced view (not going to get into a debate on calvinism here folks, so don’t go there) that reflects what Pascal said about us being a “glorious wreck,” that is, created in God’s image but horribly marred by the Fall.
But I don’t think I’ve ever heard a coherent, engaging discussion of this or plenty of other core theological issues in the evangelical churches we’ve attended, and certainly not in a way that makes it relevant to younger folks (or even to me a lot of the time). This lack of depth and relevance is one of the main reasons none of our family is too enthralled with the idea of church right now, though we still search and hope.
LikeLike
8 o’clock on a Monday morning, you could tell them the moon was made of green cheese and it’d be all the one.
Okay, enough with the flippancy.
Suggestions? From my vast experience substitute supervising all of three Religious Education classes when the teacher was out sick, here is my advice (ahem).
Well, depending on their age (I am assuming 12th Grade in America is something equivalent to 6th Year here in Ireland and that they’re around 16-18?), ask them:
(1) Make it clear that. although this is not going to be a free-for-all, and a classroom is not a democracy and you are the Absolute Ruler of all you survey, it will be a place for discussion and no-one is going to be hammered for saying the ‘wrong’ thing.
(2) What do they believe themselves?
(3) Why do they believe it, or do they have an idea why they do these things? I tried telling my innocent little victims that it’s easy enough to have a ‘faith’ based on what they’re taught in school and at home and through being brought up as believers, but when they get older/leave school, they must work out for themselves if they really believe it, or is it along the lines of ‘these are the kinds of forks we use in our house’ as C.S. Lewis puts it in the “Screwtape Letters”.
Dunno how effective that was in getting them to reflect on their faith and what it meant and thinking about deepening it, but you could try. The Parable of the Sower may be helpful here.
(4) Don’t be afraid to deal with the “yeah, but why do all the different branches of Christianity believe different stuff and fight and all that?” Don’t be afraid to discuss doubt, even amongst believers (although that depends, I suppose, if there are likely to be hordes of angry parents accusing you of turning little Johnny or Mary into an unbeliever when they come home and say “Yeah, well, Mr. Bryant said in class that …”). Jeremiah could be good here – “You duped me, Lord, and I let myself be duped!” Also, Jonah running as fast from God as his legs could carry him. Don’t be afraid of the suffering and hardship. Also, yes, you can be a ‘good person’ and not religious. But the natural (pagan) virtues – prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude – do not save. The theological ones – faith, hope, charity – do. Sorry, that’s it. Yes, God is mean. Religion is not about being a ‘good’ or ‘nice’ person.
That’s one of the unpalatable bits that may make them stop in their tracks and think about it. ‘Hey, waddya mean it’s not enough not to be a bank robber or murderer? That God doesn’t care how many cookies I baked for the church bazaar?’ (Though God does care about justice and mercy). That the purpose of Christian charity is not to make human life more comfortable but to save the souls of the poor. On the other hand, almsgivng is *not* works righteousness, and we’ll be held to account for what we did to “the least of these”.
(5) Be honest. Try and answer the hard questions about Christians behaving scandalously (though, for my sake, if someone pipes up with the Inquisition, please straighten them out on the historical facts as distinct from the popular legendry. Not saying the Spanish Inquisition was fabulous, but didja know, for instance, that it was a state affair? That there was a separate Roman Inquisition? That there wasn’t a single body running over Europe burning witches and heretics for six hundred years?)
(6) The hardest part – try and get them to *think*. If Johnny or Mary says “I don’t believe!”, then okay, fine, you’re not going to drag them out to be burned at the stake. Why don’t they believe? What convinced you otherwise? Please dig deeper, Johnny or Mary, than just “Science says” or “It’s been proven” or “Everyone knows”.
And contrariwise, get those who say “Nope, never even considered otherwise”, to think about why they accept the truths. And do they accept the truths? Go through the Apostles’ or the Nicene Creed, ask them if they really, *really* do believe the statements, and why?
Good luck!
LikeLike
Some great points in your post and in the comments. But there is one important misconception that seems to be implicit in what a lot of people are saying. Atheism doesn’t mean nihilism. Atheists don’t have to “believe in nothing” or accept that all of this just doesn’t matter. Listen to what Ricky Gervais is saying here and in other videos — he isn’t talking about how he feels relaxed because he knows life isn’t important. He talks about how important it is to live well in this life, and to do good for its own sake.
This is another lie like the ones you allude to in your post: if you don’t believe in God, the universe is empty and morality is meaningless. That’s simply not true. If you want to claim the truth or goodness of Christianity, fine, but if you tell people that atheism equals nihilistic despair, then they will be lost to you as soon as they meet an atheist who cares deeply about truth, beauty and meaning. The most nihilistic atheists I know of are former fundamentalists who believed what their church told them, and when they realized it wasn’t true they didn’t know where to turn. Their fundamentalist theology, not their atheism, made them give up on living a good life. Their upbringing made that lie into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the world is worse for it.
I also agree with Gordon above — everyone’s arguments sound good to people on their own side. I heard a debate where the “Christian” side was arguing against atheism by making fun of evolution. It was painful to listen to, because to anyone who knows even a moderate amount of evolutionary science, he was making an idiot of himself and of Christianity in general. But then I saw a Christian blog about the debate that talked about how he mopped the floor with the silly Darwinist.
Point being: these debates might be reassuring to people who already agree. But I think in the long run (and probably even the short run) they are only driving people away. Jesus saved his mockery for religious hypocrites, not for people who couldn’t give a theologically grounded explanation for why they loved their neighbor.
LikeLike
This was a fascinating program with some challenging questions. I have often heard the “I can be good without being Christian” line. OK. I”m sure I used the line often enough back in my agnostic days. If being a Christ-follower is only about good behavior, the boat called Christianity has already sunk.
I think the most challenging part of the program was when they interviewed the three students; one Muslim, one atheist, one Catholic. They asked the Muslim girl what would happen to her atheist friend after death. And they asked the Catholic boy what would happen to his Muslim friend when she died. I believe the only way Christian schools can encourage respect for diversity while living their own faith is in simply doing that. Live our faith.
LikeLike
Todd, I realize, after reading your comment, that you were speaking of your father’ s beliefs. Excuse me, that I directed my reply to you. My bad.
LikeLike
It’s the way God is ‘brought up’.
If the ‘atheist’ cannot SEE a difference in the way you live your life and encountrer certain difficulties and challenges, he probably won’t think that you have ‘digested your words’ and allowed your spoken faith to become a part of who you are.
Try to think of an atheist as someone who needs more than ‘just talk’ from the witnesses of Christ. My goodness, I look at the vitriol of some Christians in the way they have contempt for one another and, honestly, Christ is not present in those behaviors, or those words designed to ‘let people know THE TRUTH for their own good ‘ in the most abrasive, insulting, and disrespectful ways imaginable.
I like the gentle way that the Lord Christ handled the doubts of St. Thomas, with such kindness.
I like the healing response of Our Lord in the family of the one who said, “Lord, I believe. Help Thou my unbelief.”
So much love in the ‘kindness of our God’.
LikeLike
I can think of several folks that I know only by reputation, and hope that they are in that group.
LikeLike
I think it is just bad punctuation. Try it like this..
I disagree with a conclusion in your post. Atheists ARE “making converts because they have a better argumentâ€.
LikeLike
I just submitted a comment that vanished into thin cyberspace. Please check your SPAM folder for a pertinent comment that just disappeared.
LikeLike
Christianity doesn’t have any good arguments. There are no propositions, axioms, logic is niether here nor there: some people followed a guy around for a couple years, he was killed, and they swear He came back to life and told people.
The Apostle Thomas is pretty much the archetypal Gospel story in a “for instance”: he knew Jesus personally and after Jesus was killed Thomas quite rationally told the rest of the disciples that he could never be convinced that Jesus came back until he SAW IT HIMSELF. And none of the Christians around him could produce an argument to change his mind.
And then he saw it himself.
And Jesus invited Thomas to put his fingers into the holes in Jesus’ resurrected body so he could FEEL it himself.
And Thomas felt like an ass. What had he really been holding out for?
So where in that archetypal story of Jesus’ ministry do you see room for any kind of rational argument in favor of the Divine Personality?
Christianity has never produced any good arguments. Just great, crazy, “you-had-to-be-there” invitations to love.
LikeLike
St. Thomas Aquinas kicks off the “Summa Theologica” with the two main bases for atheism (though he doesn’t call it that) and spends the rest of the work laying out his argument.
I’ve seen these summarised along the lines of “Who needs God? We can explain how stuff works just fine” and “Theology isn’t real, it’s only fairy tales”
“Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: “Seek not the things that are too high for thee” (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.
Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science–even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.
Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: “For all men have not faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.”
Heck, you don’t even need to be as recent as the thirteenth century; go back to, for instance, Lucretius (1st century BC) and his poem “De Rerum Natura”, the purpose of which was specifically to give a natural explanation for the world:
“According to Lucretius’s frequent statements in his poem, the main purpose of the work was to free Gaius Memmius’s (and presumably all of mankind’s) mind of superstition and the fear of death. He attempts this by expounding the philosophical system of Epicurus, whom Lucretius apotheosizes as the hero of his epic poem.
Lucretius identifies superstition (religio in the Latin) with the notion that the gods/supernatural powers created our world or interfere with its operations in any way. He argues against fear of such gods by demonstrating through observations and logical argument that the operations of the world can be accounted for entirely in terms of natural phenomena—the regular but purposeless motions and interactions of tiny atoms in empty space—instead of in terms of the will of the gods.”
There have always been atheists. There have always been believers. And the atheists aren’t evil or lazy, and the believers aren’t stupid or hiding their head in the sand from the harsh reality of life.
LikeLike
I was an atheist until I was 21, and this post earns my Seal of Approval.
There’s a place for putting apologetics out there. But I would leave argument aside altogether. It’s just useless. The problem is too subtle: you won’t encompass it and probably won’t even address it. Now, I actually was converted to theism from atheism by a well-done little bit of philosophy. It was Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols.” So… figure that one out.
If you have anything to do with an atheist’s eventual acceptance of Christianity it’s going to look like this 99.9% of the time.
1) You live an earnest life of good example. You tend to talk about all manner of thing in a fair and intelligent kind of way. The atheist will slowly cease to look at all Christians with seething contempt and begin to look at only some Christians with seething contempt and your ridiculous ideas with seething contempt. (Note that most atheists are already here.)
2) Atheists like you personally, and because you seem a reasonable person, and they are genuinely perplexed, they want you to explain what Christianity is and why you believe it. At which point you state simply what Christians believe and why they believe it. Always let them do the asking. Proselytization and debate is each about as effective as standing there and peeing yourself as you go into a long monologue with an air of authority.
3) The rest is out of your hands.
LikeLike
These are the folks who’ll come to meet God face to face, the same God they swore all their lives didn’t even exist, and ask Him, “‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?”
And God will pat them on the head and call them righteous.
LikeLike
Schiaparelli was the Italian astronomer who observed the straight-line features on Mars; he called them “canelli”, which got translated into English as “canals” and from there the whole theorising about was this evidence of water on Mars got started, up to the ‘maybe there is/was intelligent life on Mars!’ Still, at least we got some good old-fashioned pulp SF out of it 🙂
However, there does seem to be some evidence that there may still be water on Mars – though not flowing in neat riverways.
LikeLike
Re: canals on Mars:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html
We know indisputably there’s ice there. Maybe there was water.
LikeLike
“The intellectual sorts studied their stuff largely in order to defeat the Christianity in their heads. The non-intellectuals never had it to begin with.”
Word.
LikeLike
great post, I have been talking to atheists for a while now and I agree that Christianity has created the majority of atheists through complicated, Pharisaical, legalism. The good news is that it is easier to convince an atheist of the simplicity of “following Jesus” than is is to convince an evangelical christian to consider that an atheist may be simply looking for truth rather than seeking to disprove that God exists.
LikeLike
I thoroughly enjoyed that book, too.
LikeLike
“Oh yeah, those. Good luck on distinguishing yourself from all the other spiritual claimants (including rivals from within your own religious family) through anything other than mere rhetoric, and the accidents of political power.”
Actually, Christianity as a whole is pretty well-equipped for internal self-evaluation: all those fruits of the spirit that people claim or declaim are pretty objective, and the Bible is distressingly to-the-point with stuff like this:
“Pure, unstained religion, according to God our Father, is to take care of orphans and widows when they suffer and to remain uncorrupted by this world.” James 1:27
The point being that a church or teacher that de-emphasizes basic stuff like orphans and widows and dilates on The End Times or private ecstasies or Calvinism or The Virgin Mary is practicing a religion unacceptable to God.
And the Bible being a pretty long book with that being the general theme, you see how it goes.
As for “distinguishing ourselves from other spiritual claimants”, I’ve never been mistaken for a Jain or a Muslim…?
As for demolishing atheism, PHILOSOPHICALLY there are strong arguments on both sides (Platinga, etc., though I didn’t find Boyer’s explanation all that convincing myself), but I hope that no Christian seriously views their life (or Jesus’s!) as a demolition project…
..though we all know that such Christians are, at this moment, reading this blog…
LikeLike
Dear Todd, somewhere in your Bible study, Read the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 25.
And then pray that people get heavily involved in helping the hungry, the thirsty, the poor, the ones in prison, and the ones who suffer.
We desparately need the ones who need us, so that we may know Christ through and He may recognize us on the Last Day.
As a matter of fact, don’t just serve in a soup kitchen. Go sit down and visit with someone while they eat and keep them company. And listen to them. Be ‘with them’.
Then you will begin to understand that ‘proper teaching’ and ‘Bible study’ cannot replace real love for one another as He has loved us.
LikeLike
The first problem is that American Evangelicals are the biggest secularists around if you go back to the original definition of secular, which focuses on the “here and now.” Their theology has replaced unspeakable mystery with linguistic propositions, and they have reduced the Christian experience to a consumer product. When atheists deride American evangelicals as people who believe in a Big Imaginary Friend, they are right. And I am not saying this as an atheist — I consider myself a Reformation (i.e. European-style) evangelical, which is quite far from what the American version has become.
The second problem is that to the extent evangelicals have associated themselves with the Religious Right, a political movement which exploits religious rhetoric for secular political ends, they have associated themselves with a moral landscape which should give them pause. Is it really true that universal health care is “theft” and torture is OK? There may be good arguments against universal health care — and I think there are excellent arguments against Obama’s plan — but how many of the arguments conservatives advance are really rooted in the first-century gospel and how many are rooted in Enlightenment-influenced 18th-century republicanism? Do they know the difference? Millions of young people, a lot of whom would like to be Christians, simply look at American evangelicals and — correctly — say, “These people do not make the world a better place.”
LikeLike
If you have to ‘tell the facts’, and the person cannot see your faith,
you have already lost a chance to help him.
Problem now is too many people talkin the talk.
And these are the very ones who have no problem sitting at the rich man’s table while Lazarus is dying outside the gates.
You want to get someone’s attention. Point to Christ.
With your whole being. With all that is in you.
Point to Christ.
LikeLike
Growing up Baptist equipped me with a great deal of knowledge, but no love.
It taught me about the books of the bible, and about guilt, and about arguments against things, and rationales, and defenses.
But love was just a word on a page, something we talked about a lot but didn’t actually go anywhere near.
We turned all of the mentions of the Kingdom of Heaven into allegories for something we were going to get to some day. We practiced distance, and correctness, and identifying who the bad people were.
And now…now I have to be very careful about the conversations with my dad, and he’s beginning to sense that there are things that he’s missing, that the words don’t mean the same things, that his advice is becoming slippery.
If discipleship is supposed to free me, expanding my world, healing me, then so much of what I find in church is an anathema to it. In fact, church serves mostly as an immunizing agent, something to form discipline against, while watching for the other people who are surviving on their way through it.
To paraphrase Donald Miller, “I won’t defend Christianity to you…but I will tell you about this person named Jesus, who really loves me, and who wants to see you become the person you were meant to be.”
Not, “Christ loved you, so he did this incredible thing, and now you need to form a life reaction based on guilt.”
Not, “You know these things are wrong, so you stand convicted and bound for hell unless you accept my deal.”
Not, “God is waiting to strike down all of the evil people who wouldn’t repent at the end of time, so you’d better shape up before you get yours.”
I have a Saviour who decried the religious experts who lived only to place heavier and heavier weights on the backs of those they were meant to be rescuing, who healed people simply because he could without expecting recompense, who wept at the sight of a hurting world and who wanted to free it, and who praised the churches for their love and excellence.
We have lost our first love. We may have never truly known what love was. You can’t argue love, you can only live it.
LikeLike
iMonk, I’m curious. On that bookshelf of yours. Do you have Carl Sagan’s ‘The Demon Haunted World’? If not, I hope you will and please read it.
LikeLike
“We are the ones who appear to not believe in the God we say is real. We are the ones who seem to be forcing ourselves to believe with bigger shows, bigger celebrities and bigger methods of manipulation.”
This should be written on the doorposts and lintels of every mega-church and Christian book store. On the back of every ticket to the latest ‘life changing conference’ and every ‘inspirational worship experience.’
Christianity is unappealing because it is unreal and, if you read the introduction to most Christian devotionals, unachievable. Where have all the practitioners gone?
LikeLike
My father sees social justice programs, like soup kitchens, as a slippery slope into competitive works based lifestyle. There’s simply no place for it in a life based around bible study, proper teaching, prayer, and moral living.
LikeLike
What is the best logical argument-response to children dying of cancer, or people starving to death, or leper colonies, or hospices full of AIDS victims?
What help does “the best argument” hold for somebody who is dying for a drink of water, or a hug, or a handshake?
LikeLike
Amen, brother.
LikeLike
One of the things that struck me when reading her Son’s biography, was the extent to which this face is now the face of Christianity in the western world. Young people can come out of church assuming we are angry, ranting, people hating and intent on forcing our bitterness on the rest of the world.
LikeLike
Christianity seems to die out in people not in a bang but in a wimper. It dissipates out when first the more venal things that evangelicals warn about are not found to be as deadly as they are said to be. Once you have a couple drinks or fool around a bit with your significant other and find that you don’t become a drug-addled AIDS patient right away, the churchian scales start to fall from your eyes, don’t they? You miss a few church services and you aren’t struck down… It goes on like this. Sooner or later you’re freed from this religious pressure which, ironically, I believe Jesus wanted to free people from.
LikeLike
Thanks for a great and perceptive post — part of me, from the UK (Ricky Gervais and all) side of the pond, wanted to say “welcome to our world,” certainly one that reflects the way things have felt these past thirty years.
For me, the real heart of your wisdom was “Vast numbers of people aren’t asking for philosophy. They are asking what will let them live a life uncomplicated by lies, manipulation and constant calls to prefer ignorance to what seems obvious.”
There seems to be a world of difference between debates where people shout at and past each other, and the sort where people actually listen to each other — and without wanting just to quote the bible at people, St James’ advice about being “slow to anger, slow to speak, eaher to listen” seems like, not only the bes strategy, but somethng I thought was par of our Christian value system in the first place….
There’s a BBC radio show airing right now involving my old boss, which shows what a mutual rather than knockabout discussion with intelligent atheists might be like: excuse the plug, but it has been very interesting and relevant to this thread: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m1nm2
LikeLike
You are not going to “demolish” atheism, except perhaps in limited debate situations. (Without having seen the video, let me say that I’m sure we could point to equally inept or unappealing representatives of Christianity. But that would be a “straw man” argument.” )
Nor are atheists likely to disprove religion–at least, not any more than has already been done. In other words, reasonable people can believe either one…as well as any of the hundreds of other belief systems out there.
Oh yeah, those. Good luck on distinguishing yourself from all the other spiritual claimants (including rivals from within your own religious family) through anything other than mere rhetoric, and the accidents of political power.
Have any of you read either of the books by the late philosopher, Sam Francis? His tone is very different than what you seem to associate with atheists. For intellectuals (of all persuasions) I recommend “Religion Explained” by Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist.
LikeLike
Monk: you got linked by Friendly Atheist again. FWIW, the evangelicalism I came out of wasn’t intellectually shallow. Maybe it wasn’t typical, though: I’m becoming aware that the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union is perhaps different from a lot of evangelical culture. I read Lewis and Zacharius, and I know those Cambridge folk are now well into Craig and Keller. As it happens, I’m still impressed with some of your team. I’ve just left comment at Friendly Atheist pointing out that Craig is formidable and opponents who underestimate him tend to get thrashed, just as you saw. I still think he’s wrong, naturally, but it’s annoying that few of his opponents can stand up and say why (I still hope to see Craig vs John W. Loftus). But anyway…
Even coming from an intellectual conservative evangelicalism that was suspicious (perhaps too suspicious) of flashes and bangs and, you know, feelings, there there’s something about your idea that atheism is simpler that is familiar to my experience. At some point, I was trying to make sense of it all and I became aware that atheism was a way to cut the knot (with Occam’s razor, maybe). I don’t know whether you’re read Altemeyer’s “The Authoritarians”, but he has a great passage (I liked it so much I put it in my atheist testimony) about how evangelicalism creates a great valuing of the truth per se, which leads apostates to abandon evangelicalism when it doesn’t seem to be the truth. It felt like that.
Trying to live a decent life is going to be hard, but I think evangelicalism does make it harder than it needs to be (even the conservative sort which doesn’t do cheap tricks is very big on guilt). I guess we’re not going to agree on whether there’s a God, but if you can convince evangelicals to make it less hard, I’m in favour.
LikeLike
Its not my conclusion that atheists have better arguments. Your first sentence is totally deceiving. Could you revise it please.
LikeLike
“Our team looks good to us. Trust me, they don’t look that good to atheists.”
I appreciate your honesty here. As an atheist I can only agree. I accept that your team looks, to you, to be making some good points. I have watched so may debates on youtube, and what the comments tell me is – both sides are sure they won! “Our guy blew your guy’s arguments away” “all the Other guy had was those same old points we’ve heard before” – we BOTH get to say this!!!
Even in my own experience, I’ve read “The God Delusion” when I was a believer, and it made me angry but didnt stop me believing in god, and I re-read it as a non-believer and wondered “how did I get angry at this, it is so reasonable”
So I think you are right. Arguments aren’t going to win the day. We are both unconvinced by the other sides arguments. Of course, one side is right that the other only has wishful thinking and is ignoring the valid points being made. But there’s no way to tell which is which… except by more argument.
I will say that de-converting for me was very much like you described. It was a weight off my shoulders. I was free to make moral decisions, and to value this life as more than a test. I’ve seen both sides and I am happier over here. But I am glad you and your commenters have the integrity to look at this so honestly…
LikeLike
“Karl Barth said of the church and its dogmas that they are like the canals of Mars – places that show where living water once flowed. Hopefully it can flow again.”
A really bad example. There never were any canals on Mars. It was an illusion seen by one person or he was making it up or whatever.
And like many of our Christian arguments, a bad one to use with people who might know the truth about said canals.
LikeLike
“walk the aisle over and over again”
And when they see others do this and the “others” seem to never change….
They start to ask “What’s the point?”
LikeLike
My dad became an atheist when he asked his parents about God and they had no clear answers. So he dared God to strike him down with lightning. When God didn’t, Dad concluded that He must not be there.
I grew up thinking the average atheist had as much basis for nontheism as Dad. And the atheists that pastors debated were about as intellectual. That is, till I got to college and met some real atheists: folks who had grown up Christian, and were now intellectually rejecting it. They had heard all the arguments for God’s existence; they had heard the logic, the testimonies, and had read their Josh McDowell. They weren’t buying it.
It got me away from the idea that there’s one type of atheist. I’ve met the intellectual kind, and the decidedly non-intellectual kind. Most of the young atheists I’ve met are the non-intellectual sort: We Christians make no sense, are no fun, and are too judgmental. It’s easier to believe in nothing. The intellectual sorts studied their stuff largely in order to defeat the Christianity in their heads. The non-intellectuals never had it to begin with.
LikeLike
I disagree with a comment in your post – that some people believe atheists are “making converts because they have a better argument”. (MOD EDIT)
I have had the pleasure of attending a debate featuring [Mod edit] William Lane Craig, and I must say I was not impressed by him. I suppose you could blame my atheism for a biased opinion, but really doesn’t everyone attending such a debate go in knowing who they are rooting for? It is like attending a sporting event – how many people really go without having already decided to cheer for their home team?
While Craig certainly comes across very polished and “likable”, what he (and many like him) failed to accomplish was a logical argument. I see a great number of apologists with this problem – they make great leaps in their hypotheses without any premise. Sadly, I do not have the notes from the debate in front of me and I would rather not try to assert his position from memory, but his “proofs” were essentially glorified assumptions. Like many before and after him, Craig failed to demonstrate an understanding of word definitions and the art of the logical argument. This could have been, and most likely was, done on purpose to confuse the points. In my experience, most of those young students you so quickly dismiss as taking the easier path (a la Occam) do so not out of some mental fit of laziness, but rather out of an increased mental awareness that the pretense of proof fails under minor scrutiny. More people are learning that the word “Theory” when used correctly is much stronger than the hunch that is usually garnished with the title. They are learning the art of argumentation in a classroom setting and applying it to their lives.
Perhaps we have Court TV and crime dramas to blame, but people are demanding more from their proof than implications of complexity and probability. When your only proof is a book that has been translated and edited many times over, no matter how highly you regard it you have no proof (in that context). Why does your book have greater weight than any other? The Torah? The Vedas? The Book of Mormon? Dianetics?
LikeLike
How hard it is to differentiate following Jesus from creating institutions that have to be maintained by emotional pressure. I’m on my way to full-time ministry, and in my heart I could never leave Jesus, but I do sometimes wonder whether my life would be better if I could just give it over and sleep in on Sundays. What we need is spiritual freedom, and a genuine relationship with God apart from the manipulation of others. Karl Barth said of the church and its dogmas that they are like the canals of Mars – places that show where living water once flowed. Hopefully it can flow again.
LikeLike
A couple straightforward reasons that people, especially young ones bail on the faith:
guilt and its constant use to engender religious commitment and moral behavior, and the constant need felt by pastors and congregations to treat people poorly because they think their doctrinal system demands it.
Even in non-Christian faiths like Judaism and Islam, guilt drives many people to agnosticism or atheism when the primary motivation to faith is guilt.
We have our children ” re-dedicate” and walk the aisle over and over again, and you can bet a large percentage will walk away from the faith in their teen years. Whats almost worse are those who don’t ditch everything, but purpose in their heart to “just not take the whole thing so seriously.”
Many Christians just aren’t equipped to deal with a child who turns out to be gay , or someone whose life choices have taken them far away from what we consider a “Christian lifestyle.” We cook up an answer or reaction that we think we are supposed to have based on the latest sermon series and then wonder why people are so bitter against the church.
LikeLike
Great comments but, how does one even get the conversation started? So many people are offended by the idea of God even being brought up in a conversation. They react as if a bad smell entered the room.
LikeLike
If you have good reasons to believe your religion is true then why not be honest and straight forward and lay out the facts and let the atheist make a rational and justified decision instead of trying to play games?
LikeLike
Follow-up:
And you can’t talk about this in the church, or with your friends or family many times because *their* faith is so fragile that it can’t stand up to simple questions, let alone the hard ones. People are afraid that you’ll deconvert them, even if you never fully deconvert, and sometimes they’re right.
I’m been fortunate to have a few people with whom I have been able to negotiate these questions…it’s a lonely road, otherwise.
LikeLike
Sometimes I feel that there are several stages to Christianity:
Stage 1: Highly experiential, subjective, ‘magic’. Your conferences, praise & worship, pentacostalism and the like fit here.
Stage 2: Well, subjectivity only gets you so far. Let’s figure it out, here. Apologetics textbooks, perfectionist theologies, that whole side of things prop up this stage.
Stage 3: Way too many gaping holes in the theories, and the best ones have the smallest minority followings. But Christianity is about *following* God, right? Love God, love your neighbor? Not sure about the first, but I can manage the second.
Stage 4: This is ludicrous.
I finished reading 50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. Harrison. I have one reason; I’m afraid of unbelief. None of the others hold water for me anymore. Jesus is, in Gervais’ words, brilliant. The Christian ethic inspires me. Grace is amazing. But the systematic theologies are swiss cheese and wishful thinking only takes on so far.
The most beautiful people I’ve met are devout Christians. I’m determined to walk this out to the end, whatever that means, so I’m actively trying to see if I can re-rewrite stage four to become more like Jung’s mystic, seeing the whole beyond the holes.
We’ll see.
LikeLike
No good arguments? Wow . . . Um, I think I’ll skip an invitation to a faith that claims historical grounding but turns out to have no good arguments.
LikeLike
I just got assigned the 12th grade apologetics course at the Christian school where I teach. I grew up on Lewis. I spent my youth in apologetic discussions with my seminary professor father. I’ve got shelves full of Kreeft, Craig, Schaeffer, Keller, Sire, Denton, Geisler, Wright, and so many others.
But when I think about going into that class with Ashley and Shantelle and Peter and Cordell, it stops me dead in my tracks.
What am I going to do this very Monday morning at 8:00 a.m?
LikeLike
I think this is a brilliant statement of the problem. I was a functioning Agnostic for years, still saying I was Christian but not really believing any of it. The fundamental disconnect was reconciling the Christianity I had been taught with the wider Baptist world of constant bullshit, lies and sales pitches. I couldn’t have a conversation with anybody about my doubts, except of course the atheists. It was only later, after I stubbornly persisted in examining the problem, that I determined why I was having doubts and what I could do about it.
Most people just don’t get that far. They shouldn’t have to fight the church, and other Christians, in order to explore their beliefs (or lack thereof).
I feel like the game the church is currently trying to play is the hard sell. Don’t let them out the door, no matter what. I think what that does is turn a group of 9 Christians and 1 Atheist into 10 Atheists. Better to let the Atheist who truly does not have faith go, and welcome them back if they come around. Better than trying to convince everyone not to examine their beliefs honestly, which means Christians running through the motions but functionally Agnostic.
LikeLike
Sign up at gravatar.com. You just have to use same email address in the Mail field here.
LikeLike
I agree that many kids are rejecting Jesus because they “have found that it’s just more fun to have a drink with the non-religious crew”. And in that sense, philosophical arguments aren’t going to persuade them one way or another. At the root of this is the “dumbing-down” of society, surely. But to dismiss the incredible work of the Craigs, Zacharias’, because of this, is missing the point. Twenty-five years ago, we had very poor answers for the atheist’s arguments. We’ve come a long way, and need to stay at the front of this game. Kids aren’t the only ones we’re inviting to the field to play, after all. You say you’re “convinced the game is not primarily about arguments any more”. I disagree completely – it was NEVER about arguments in the first place. If you listen to Craig or Zacharias, they’ll be the first to tell you that, and they repeat it over and over.
Having said that, I agree that we have to change our tactics for those kids, and the only way we’re going to win them over is by being the love of Christ in their lives. At the end of the day, if you ask any teenager what they REALLY want in life, their heart-cry will be “I just want to be loved”.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater – apologetics will have it’s turn in every devoted, truth-seeking life at some point. It may not be how we bring them to the Kingdom, but it will be crucial in their discipleship – the big questions always become important at some junction of their lives.
LikeLike
Speaking as a person who just came back to Jesus a few months ago from Atheism, I emphasize alot about this post. It isnt’ convicting to me, because I’ve lived it. After years of hearing “Every Man’s Battle” and 5 points to doing this, and doing ministry, I got engaged. After sin was shown, after the chips fell, I just decided that being an atheist was easier. It really was. I didn’t have to try anymore, I felt like I could relax as the first time in years. In my heart, I still wanted to love Jesus, wouldn’t call myself a Christian, and didn’t go to church out of respect for him. So, I know I was still a christian, at my intrinsic level, I loved Jesus.
But I didn’t hear about him in church, and I got really sick and tired of hearing about warm fuzzy God and the application fo the week. And the new ministry strategy for the dorms. And the new plans for bible studies. I got tired of “saving myself” for marriage, only to find, when I did sin eventually, no bolt of lightning came down to smite me. (I regret it now, but still, the moralism crap has got to go). Speaking as a person who ministers right now to 20 year olds and college guys, I have to talk about Legalism moreso than you think. Its easier in our society to be an atheist, especially for a guy, cause it allows us to just sink down to the apathy and weakness we naturally assume, rather than the robust content of the Gospel that gives us sonship.
I’m just saying, basically, it was easier. Be an atheist, work my job, sleep with my girlfriend, play videogames. The only reason I am back now is hearing about Jesus at an Acts 29 church
LikeLike
I like to think that an honest Christianity has no good arguments, only great invitations.
LikeLike
I’m going to go ahead and give this post a big Amen.
Now, if I could only figure out what following Jesus is apart from participating in some devolved nonsensical theological bandying-about and guilt-tripping, I’d feel a lot better about calling myself a Christian.
I’ve encountered exactly the phenomenon you’re describing in my personal life, and I found that my friends’ suspicion of even the hint of Christian idiom would utlimately break down our conversations. I’m glad you’re pointing it out to people, Michael.
LikeLike
“Our team looks good to us. Trust me, they don’t look that good to atheists.”
While I’ve reached a point where Jesus means everything to me, the the team still doesn’t look so good to me.
For the most part.
LikeLike
Well said. Thanks.
LikeLike
Sobering and insightful. I have a great deal of respect for people like Ravi, John Lennox, etc. They are brilliant thinkers and godly men. But it seems we have limited the “weapons of our warfare” to the same playing field as the ungodly. As Christians, we believe we can out persuade, out smart, out reason, out debate, and all for the defense of Christ. Although I believe this to be part of our arsenal, the manifesations of the Spirit in our lives through worship, prayer, acts of love, repentance, generosity, sacrifice, a firey and holy longing for Jesus to come and inhabit his people and pour out his Spirit through our lives so he may be lifted up, etc, are ancient weapons that have no equal. I’m not talking emotionalism but the coming of the Spirit into the lives of God’s people that leads to radical transformation not the slighly improved, mostly complacent but eternally secure me. Lord, have mercy
LikeLike
“In fact, some of them outperform us Christians in caring for the poor and sick and elderly”
Perhaps they know Christ better than you realize. They know Him through their experience of the poor, the sick, and the elderly, and they have responded to Him with love.
It is said, “Not everyone who says, ‘Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom . . . . . ”
Sometimes I think we need to reframe the debate about what goes into being a ‘Christian’, especially with so many suffering these days, while ‘good Christian people’ walk calmly past them on their way to Church.
LikeLike
Somebody: respond to Austin’s second post, please. We all want to know.
But back to the topic: None of the atheists I know are bufffoons and none of them are angry misanthropes. In fact, some of them outperform us Christians in caring for the poor and sick and elderly.
I think that evangelicals have become so conditioned to believe that doing good works won’t get us into heaven that we shun good works as if they were sins.
Not that I’m a Calvinist, but I feel that I have no choice but to be a believer in Christ because I have seen the truth in a manner something like Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road. Having had that revelation, there is no turning back, whether I like it or not. If I could choose my religion–if all religions were on par–I would likely be an atheist.
But I can’t. I’ve seen the light. There is no choosing otherwise, and this has nothing to do with Calvin. It’s Jesus.
LikeLike
I have always thought of Ockham’s Razor as the original version of the ‘KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID’ advice.
About atheism: at LEAST the individual has asked the question ‘Is there a God?’
And in order to ask the question, the individual has had to somehow process the concept of God through his/her brain. Now, this is good. A beginning.
God can do a lot with a little. And ‘His Way’ is always a heck of lot more creative than many of our own efforts, some of which are so mean-spirited that we drive the individual into ‘Confirmed Atheist’ mode, from which his pride will make it a lot harder for him to get out of, should the Good Lord make His move on the individual. In short, remember, you can relax, the Holy Spirit has not left the building. Given an opening, the Holy Spirit might even direct YOU to say something cool to the individual to get him/her thinking on things eternal.
Now, if you’re a Catholic, just invite the individual to a good old-fashioned Irish wake. After one of these fun things: tons of jokes and stories about the deceased, lots of laughter, singing, and mucho libations, the individual will begin to wonder, ‘Gee, if they are that joyful, maybe they really do believe they will see their friend again in the afterlife. ” Lots of ways to show the strength of our faith without overwhelming the individual with the usual talk-a-thon.
LikeLike
I think Mike K is onto something. It seems to me that the practical failures of the church have always been there, it is just that now they are more on display to those outside.
In reality it is likely not the general failures themselves that is the biggest turnoff, but the particular failure to be honest about it.
LikeLike
question: was this EVER the game? I know all about modernism and the emphasis on absolute certainty and logic and scientific method and rational thinking, and how that used to be the norm and now we are postmodern so that stuff doesn’t matter anymore. But I still have to wonder, has it EVER been the case that the best argument for Christianity was a philosophical one? Or has a life reflective of the gospel always been more powerful than a rational argument for the gospel? Just wondering.
LikeLike
The biggest advertisement for why not to be a Christian is the attitude and lifestyle of most Christians. I ain’t like Jesus. We (Christians) talk like everything is in order when it isn’t and we LIVE like it isn’t. The fact is we are better hypocrites than we are believers.
LikeLike
alright this is completely off topic, but can anyone tell me how to get one of those cool pictures of myself with my posts? up in the right corner
LikeLike
chilling Imonk,
this is reason number one i have decided to not subject my children to the type of high pressure, manipulation that i got as a child and the circus that is many batist churches
LikeLike