The following essay will actually give very few points of its own. Rather, the majority of it will be comprised
of counterpoints; indeed, counterpoints countering protest that Atheists
traditionally raise against Christianity.
Obviously, every protests against Christianity cannot be addressed
here. But I think that I have
successfully centralized the vast majority of them for presentation in this
essay (I’ll let you be the ultimate judge of that success). The following are common questions and
comments construed as ample evidence for denying Christianity, each of which
will be engaged in detail and in order:
“If religion causes
war, then why be religious?”
“Christianity is not
based on evidence.”
“If God created the
universe, then what created God?”
“Why is there evil
in the world?”
“If religion causes war, then why
be religious?”
An Atheist probably
makes this protest with the Christian Crusades, Islamic Jihads, etc. fresh on
their mind. The protest certainly has
its merits and is cause for consideration.
But I also find that it does not constitute ample evidence for denying
religion completely. Why? Because Atheists, when making this statement,
are not being even-handed. There are
plenty of other things besides religion that give people reason for war. I charge that if an Atheist is to deny
religion on account of its violent history, it must deny these other things
that cause war or admit to being hypocritical.
Before I proceed to argue that, I’d like to rephrase the Atheist protest
to promote consistency across the terminology I plan to use in this essay:
“Religious conviction causes
war.” This rephrase is not merely for
better coherence within this essay; I consider it to be a more concise way of
framing the issue in general. For there
are plenty of Christians, Islamists, Buddhists, etc. who are not convicted
enough about their religion to go to war over it.
To look at history
and accuse religious conviction for war is warranted, but only part of the
truth; there are plenty of other convictions responsible for war. Hitler waged war on account of his racial
convictions. Stalin waged war on account
of his convictions regarding government and economic philosophy. Julius Caesar waged war on account of his
political convictions. The Mongols, the
Norsemen, the Chinese, the Japanese; all have been involved in wars on account
of their convictions. And if “religious”
constitutes “belief in the supernatural”, then none of the examples I just
listed involve religious convictions; they are each non-religious convictions. It is much more even-handed to state that
religious and non-religious convictions
cause war; to say that religious conviction alone causes war is not reporting
the whole story. Now, if an Atheist is
to deny religious convictions of any kind on account of the fact that they have
been responsible for many past wars, then an Atheist, in order to fully commit
himself to the truth of his protest, must also deny convictions or beliefs that
are non-religious because they cause wars just as brutal and just as frequently
as religious convictions. And at this
point the Atheist must give up Atheism, for Atheism is itself a non-religious
conviction.
“Atheism is no
belief, it is a fact,” I’m sure plenty of people will protest. Such a person probably misunderstands what I
mean when I say that Atheism is a belief (or conviction, the two terms are
indistinct here). What I’m not saying is that Atheism is ignorant. People nowadays tend to assume that people
“believe” only when there is a lack of
evidence. I see it as just the opposite
in many instances; many (such as myself) traditionally only believe in
something after being presented with ample evidence to do so. What I am
saying is that no one on earth can ultimately know whether or not Atheism is
true. Given, if something looks, sounds,
and feels like a duck, it probably is a duck.
But unless we somehow know,
beyond any doubt, that it is a duck, the most we can do is believe that it is a duck.
Unless an Atheist has personally witnessed the big bang and all the
processes that followed, the most they can do is believe that it happened, even if that belief is based on evidence. To recap: In order to fairly deny religious
convictions on account that it results in war, one must also deny non-religious
convictions because they, too, result in war.
And since Atheism is a conviction, the argument itself backfires on the
Atheists who try and make the argument.
“Isn’t it perfectly reasonable for an Atheist to reject
the convictions specific to the aforementioned tyrants while keeping his own personal,
distinct convictions?” What’s ironic
about my inclusion of this anticipated protest is that I completely agree with it. I
consider it quite reasonable, to an extent, for an Atheist merely to reject
those convictions specific to tyrants while maintaining their own
convictions. But surely you see what
implications this has for the religious side of the question, don’t you? If you hold that it is reasonable for
Atheists to have non-religious convictions though they lead to war, you must
also hold (in order to be fair, at least) that it is reasonable for religious
people to have religious convictions though they lead to war as well, so long
as they, too, do not hold the exact same convictions as religious tyrants. As such, an Atheist cannot say that it is
unreasonable to be religious because people start wars on account of
religion. Well, I suppose they can say this. But to do so would be hypocritical.
“One can be an Atheist without sharing the same
convictions as Hitler, Stalin, etc. But if
someone is a Christian, for example, then do they not by definition have the
exact same convictions as the Crusaders?”
The answer is no, they do not. In
fact, I’d wager to say that less than 5% of Christians today believe that the
Crusades were fully justified. And even
further, the Bible, the authoritative text for Christians, says nothing that
justifies the Crusades. Indeed, it says
several things that directly condemn the Crusades (e.g. “Judge not, lest ye be
judged,” “Thou shalt not murder,” etc.) So
while the Crusaders may have claimed to be acting in the name of God, Biblically
speaking, that claim was quite in vain (third of the Ten Commandments: “Thou
shalt not use the LORD’s name in vain”).
It is misguided to suppose that any act done by a Christian is itself in
line with Christian moral beliefs; even if the Christian himself claims that it
is. It is further misguided to suppose that,
in order to become a Christian, you must affirm the “say so” of every other
Christian ever. To profess to be a
Christian is not to profess to share every single conviction with every other
Christian. So a Christian can still be a
Christian reasonably; they can accept Christianity while rejecting the supposed
“Christian” convictions that have led to war in the past.
The conclusion? Any
Atheist is free to deny religion. They
are even free to deny religion on these grounds and these grounds alone. But to
do so would be hypocritical.
“Christianity is not based on
evidence.”
I understand in part
where this protest comes from. All the
more why I want to contest it, for I do not consider where it comes from to be
a place of honest reason and common sense.
The following lines argue that point of view.
A good place to start when considering the protest
itself is to look at what Christianity is
based on. It is almost solely based upon
Jesus. And regarding Jesus, Christians,
generally speaking, have two beliefs: 1) he was actual – he actually existed on
the earth as a human at one time historically and 2) everything he preached is
true. How do these two beliefs measure
up in terms of evidence? The first
measures up beautifully. There are
plenty of historical manuscripts backing Jesus’ story. There is also reason to believe that those
manuscripts are reliable. Jesus’
followers were Jews and, per Jewish religious practice, would have understood
the importance of taking notes during Jesus’ ministry. The intensive and extensive impact of Jesus
on culture A.D. (not to mention his splitting the calendar in half) make it
hard to suppose that story of Jesus was a mere fantasy. How does the second belief fare in terms of
evidence? I have more extensively
presented this evidence in my posts, “Apologetics: Jesus’ Story” and “Who do
you say Jesus is?” I’ll present three
primary bits of evidence, two of which are broken down in those posts. First, the chances of Jesus fulfilling all of
the prophecies about him by accident are next to zero. Second, the idea that Jesus is a liar does
not fit well with how much the apostles were willing to suffer. For who is willing to suffer on account of a
liar? You may protest: “Do you not,
though, contest that many religious leaders are liars? How do you explain their willingness to suffer?”
My answer? These followers did not have irrevocable evidence proving that their
leaders were liars (of course they were presented with evidence, but they
considered it excusable). To the
contrary, the apostles followed a man who claimed to be the Son of God. And the Son of God, by definition, cannot
die. Thus, Jesus’ death was in fact irrevocable evidence to his apostles that he
was a liar. And yet they suffered
and died in the name of this liar, whom they fully knew to be a liar? Notice how this observation doubles as
evidence for the Resurrection. Finally,
in consideration of Jesus’ claim that he was, in fact, the Son of God, one can
reasonably make one of two conclusions about Jesus: he was a lunatic or he was
truthfully the Son of God. For if he was
not the Son of God, then he lied about being as much, which is, of course,
complete lunacy. A Christian recognizes
the profoundness of Jesus’ words and teachings as beyond what any lunatic could
produce. Since a Christian concludes that
he was not a lunatic, they, by definition, must believe that he was telling the
truth. There is, of course, far more
evidence than this; presented in numerous apologetic classics including but not
limited to, “The Case for Christ”, “Mere Christianity”, “The Historical Jesus”,
and so on.
“Christianity is ignorant of the evidence against it,”
one might protest. I find, however, that
operating on this premise takes us into a meaningless stalemate. Like above, consider what Christianity actually does. If you are an informed, rational Christian
(sadly, there are other sorts of Christians), you believe that the evidence in
favor of Christianity outweighs the evidence against Christianity. This is what the Atheist calls “ignorant of
the evidence against it”, and of course I can see why. But there is a fatal flaw here, for Atheism does the same thing. An Atheist supposes that the evidence against
Christianity outweighs the evidence for it. If the converse Christian belief is “ignorance
of the evidence against it”, then I could easily contest that this Atheist
belief is also “ignorant of the evidence against it”. It is at this point that we have the
stalemate, for to follow the conclusion that Christianity is ignorant of the
evidence against it results in nothing but useless finger-pointing. It is much more logically sound to conclude
not that Christianity is completely ignorant, but that, “Christianity’s reasoning for defaulting the evidence
against it is unsound.” Once an Atheist
concedes this about Christianity (and a Christian about Atheism, for that
matter), the two parties can get to discussing each other’s’ reasoning rather than arguing that one
or the other “is completely ignorant”.
It does no good for an Atheist to argue that
Christianity is based on no evidence whatsoever, for I already presented a mere
sliver of evidence in its favor. If an
Atheist is to argue against Christianity on evidential grounds, they must argue that the evidence is lacking
and/or not compelling. And to the
one who wishes to do that, I suggest you get started doing your research,
forming up your logic, and triple-checking for fallacies. Because Christian professors the world over
have already done the same. The
conclusion? An Atheist is free to think
that Christianity is unreasonable, but its evidential legitimacy cannot be
defaulted by the mere one-liner, “Christianity is not based on evidence.”
“If God created the universe, then
what created God?”
Christians, in
response to this question, will likely give a vast range of answers which
Atheists generally consider to be without merit. I understand full well why they think this. The only thing that a Christian can give in response
to this question is an excuse: “God
is eternal; he does not need to be created,” “God always existed; he needs no
cause.” This apparent attempt of a
Christian to waive the need to rationalize their answer tends to turn an
Atheist off to Christianity. Have I any
better of an answer to this protest? No,
I have only excuses. But I do have a
valid point to bring up regarding the logic on which the question is based in
the first place. Now, an Atheist often
brings up this point to explain why they are not a Christian. But what they often fail to realize is this: Atheism runs into the same exact problem
Christianity does while trying to answer the same exact question.
Allow me to present
an example. If someone asked a
Christian, “Where did the world come from?” they would answer, “God created
it.” That someone would probably then
ask, “Who created God?” at which time the Christian, perhaps frustrated, would
give the first excuse that popped into his head. Now consider someone questioning an Atheist;
“Where did the world come from?” Their
answer? “A microscopic, infinitely dense
particle (or something of the like, I do not pretend to be an expert).” That
someone could then ask, “Where did that
come from?” At this time, the Atheist is
forced to do exact same thing as the Christian and give an excuse, “It always
existed,” “It came from another dimension (And that dimension came from where?).”
I’m sure that there
are several hundreds of physicists who have written books rationalizing the
existence of that microscopic, infinitely dense particle. But are there not hundreds of Christians who
have done the same with God, not only theologically but philosophically and
metaphysically as well? Why should we
suppose that the Atheists are any better off than Christianity with their
excuses about the infinitely dense particle “always existing”, or even
vice-versa? You may protest, “An
Atheists excuses are based on evidence; a Christian’s aren’t.” But that brings me back to the section before
this, where I discussed the problem with Atheists and Christians calling each
other completely ignorant. I’ll repeat a
similar argument here briefly if you skipped the previous section. An Atheist looks at the universe and says,
“Matter interacts with matter in a fixed and complex way. It could very easily have interacted in such
a way as to create the universe.” On the
other hand, a Christian looks at the universe and says, “Matter interacts with
matter in a fixed and complex way.
Surely there is an intelligent Creator behind this.” Are not both of these conclusions based on
evidence; indeed, the exact same
evidence? Here, evidence A can
just as rationally point to conclusions B
or C.
So it is highly unfair to suppose that only Atheism or only Christianity
is based on the evidence simply because you agree with one or the other’s conclusion
about the evidence.
So now we have a level playing field; a Christian has
nothing but excuses to offer explaining the origin of God. But neither does an Atheist have anything but
excuses to explain the origin of that microscopic, infinitely dense
particle. Regarding the question
spotlighted in this section, then, we have one conclusion: to turn to Atheism
instead of Christianity on the grounds of this protest and this protest alone
is to act hypocritically.
“Why is there evil in the world?”
Some of you may have
read my post with this exact same title.
I’ll not be repeating that whole post here. In fact, just like the question above this
one, a Christian can offer naught but excuses to answer this question. Intelligent, sensible excuses perhaps (such
as with my post on the matter), but excuses nonetheless. I contest that there is, like the questions
above it, a fatal flaw with the question itself.
When calling the world “evil”, Atheists often fail to
recognize that they are, in fact, comparing the world to a Standard from which
it falls short. This Standard, by
definition, must be above and beyond the world.
Why? Consider if the Standard
were in the world. Now, the Standard,
which is in the world, has judged the world to be evil (or at least, to have
evil in it). But does that not mean that
the Standard has judged itself to be evil, since the Standard is in the
world? And at this point the Standard’s
authority deflates. For if the Standard
is the least bit tainted by evil, then what gives it the right to judge the
world? If the Standard is to judge the measure
of the world’s good, then the Standard itself must be the ultimate measure of
good; in other words, the Standard must be perfectly good. The world is evil. The Standard must be perfectly good to judge
the world as evil. Therefore, the
Standard cannot be in the world. Since
it cannot be “in” the world, the Standard must be above and beyond the world
(it cannot be “below” the world for obvious reasons). The Standard is supernatural, for that is the
definition of something above and beyond the world. To recap: in order to call the world “evil”,
one must acknowledge a supernatural Standard from which the world has fallen
short. The person who acknowledges this
Standard need not be a Christian or perhaps even a Theist. But they cannot be an Atheist, as Atheism
denies the supernatural. So the protest,
“Why is there evil in the world,” cannot even be made by an Atheist to deny
Christianity without their rejecting their own beliefs. In fact, in a way, the protest helps Christianity; for to acknowledge
evil is to acknowledge the supernatural, which is a huge stride towards
Christianity.
Now, I suppose an
Atheist could modify their protest, saying, “Why is the world inconvenient for
me?” This modification vetoes the need
to acknowledge anything supernatural. Rather
than a supernatural standard, this protest acknowledges a personal
standard. An Atheist could also say,
“Why has the world fallen short of my standards?” However, if the protest is modified like so,
then I find it to be largely without merit. Why?
Because the person who makes it is claiming that God ought to make their life perfectly
convenient. I cannot identify sufficient
grounds for making this claim. Consider
things like school, relationships, practice, etc. Each of these things has a significant degree
of inconvenience, but I doubt if anyone would argue that each of these things
are ultimately rewarding. In fact, I find that the most rewarding
things are always inconvenient. For is it not the inconvenience that makes
the reward all the more appreciated? To
illustrate my point, consider broccoli and chocolate. The taste of chocolate is all the more
appreciated because something as distasteful as broccoli exists. Whenever you eat chocolate, you know that you
could be eating broccoli, and as such can appreciate the chocolate more. Moreover, if something several times more
delectable than chocolate came along, it is logical to suppose that chocolate
would become quite distasteful to us.
For every time we ate chocolate, we could be eating that which tastes
much better. In the same way, the
inconvenience of a situation (broccoli) by abstraction accentuates our
appreciation of the reward (chocolate). Thus,
belief in God cannot be painted as unreasonable on the grounds that
inconvenience exists in the world.
Indeed, considering the rewarding character of inconvenience, God looks
much more meaningful in that He allows it, the way a teacher allows
disappointment to motivate the improvement of his student.
So the argument that
comes very near to defaulting Christianity, “Why is there evil in the world?”
cannot be made by an Atheist. And the
argument that can be made against Christianity as an Atheist, “Why is the world
inconvenient for me?” holds no merit.
In the end, I mean
each of these words with the highest possible respect to any of my opponents
who read them. I am not “out to get”
anyone; only to speak truth where I find it.
What, then, can be said in conclusion to all of this? I know that there are a lot more protests out
there that I did not address (do be sure and check back on occasion; I may have
added a few). But in general, there is
one thing that I would like to say to anyone who is not a Christian, not merely
Atheists. Let us not suppose, as I think
many of us are tempted to, that there is any “easy button” that “simply denies”
Christianity. It cannot be swiftly
brushed aside by a single argument, or snippet of evidence, or supposedly
unanswerable question. Indeed, I’d wager
to say that no worldview can be so
easily brushed aside. We are tempted to
think so and/or convince ourselves of such because it can be exhausting and
unfruitful to try and logic ourselves into or out of a particular
worldview. Yet if we do not put in such
effort, then what right have we to unyieldingly cling to any worldview at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment