1 Peter 3:15 commands us to always be ready to give an answer to every man who asks a reason for the hope that is in us. It doesn't say to only answer the easy questions. Indeed, the more difficult the question, the more urgent should our answers be. This is the reason I blog. It's true I devote most of my blog to the creation/evolution debate but that's because I believe evolution is the greatest challenge to the Faith in our time. Even so, I'm always on the look out for other criticisms of the Bible.
In my quest to answer the best arguments against Christianity, I came across a forum with a thread titled, A Library of the Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God. Woohoo!! The mother-load. If I'm looking to answer the most challenging arguments against Christianity, here are the 40 best ones. At least, that's what the list's author said but as I began reading them, I didn't think the list lived up to its name. Or maybe I'm being too critical and there really aren't any good arguments for atheism. Hmm.
Anyway, in a list of the “best” arguments atheists use against God, what is the first argument – presumably, the “best of the best”? According to the list's author:
The fundamental argument for atheism is that there is no evidence or proof for God. There is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence.
You can see why I was disappointed in the list. Is the best argument for atheism really that Christians don't have a good argument for God? Let's look at some of the many facets of this flawed reasoning.
First, there's a little hypocrisy going on. When I write about creation or evolution, I sometimes criticize the evidence for evolution. At those times, evolutionists often cry foul saying that criticizing the evidence for evolution is not evidence for creation. That's a valid point. Of course, I often write about evidence for creation but if all I ever had were criticisms of evolution, that's a very weak argument for creation. Now the shoe is on the other foot. When making an argument for atheism, the unbeliever's first resort is to criticize the evidence for God. Yes, it's a very weak argument! And it's their best argument?
There are a few other facets to this weak argument. Implicit in this quote is that unbelief is the default position of any thinking person. I've written about this before. Atheists proudly portray themselves as skeptics who cautiously (but still open-mindedly) examine the evidence and go wherever it leads. This author is making exactly that same point: until convincing evidence or some logical argument is made for God, our starting belief should be atheism.
In my last post on this subject, I gave the analogy of finding a log cabin in the woods. Even if you don't know who built the cabin, you would start with the assumption that the cabin had a builder. You wouldn't start with the assumption that the cabin is just the accidental arrangement of trees that fell into the shape of a cabin. Atheists are welcome to look for some “scientific” evidence to explain the origin of matter, time, and space but I could save them time and tell them that no scientific explanation exists. Their “skeptical” starting point is about as reasonable as insisting a log cabin has no builder.
Notice, too, that the author employs the usual evolutionist tactic of redefining “faith” to mean “blind faith.” How predictable. In my opinion, it is the atheist who exercises blind faith by believing in a purposeless, natural, uncaused origin of the universe (which I call “poofism”) when such a belief flies in the face of everything we know scientifically.
I've talked about evidence for God many times before. Besides the existence of matter, space, and time, I could talk about the existence of absolute morality or the apparent design in nature or the historicity of Jesus or any number of other things... but what does it matter? It's the position of this atheist – probably most atheists – that they will sit cross-armed and unbelieving without offering any good reason why. They have no evidence for atheism. Their best argument is that they have no argument.
Seems, having posted some against the atheist that their position is certainty, certainty that there is no God. We all know that certainty does not make a position true, however the atheist will trade certainty for the truth every time, all the time. Then throw an attitude because the truth might be a bit messy. Oh' it is so much easier to trade certainty, when the other will require study and hard work.
ReplyDeleteCreationists and evolutionists are both presenting assertions; therefore a burden of proof lies on each of them. Creationists sometimes argue that "creation" and "evolution" exhaust the possibilities, so that disproving one will confirm the other. However, this is untrue in two ways. First, an uncreated, unevolving cosmos and Earth is conceivable (Aristotle, for example, conceived of it), so there are at least three basic possibilities, not two. Second, of course, there are myriad possible varieties of creationism (some entirely compatible with common descent of humans and other species, and large-scale adaption by natural selection), and there are several different conceivable variants of naturalistic evolution. Thus falsifying one position does not establish a contrary position.
ReplyDeleteThere are likewise numerous variations on theism. If I find a cabin in the woods, I don't necessarily assume that you built it. Even if you tell me you did, I might find your claim unconvincing. Even if I concede that time, space, and matter need an explanation but a Being able to create them doesn't (and that's a rather large concession, you must admit), does "creation implies a Creator" mean that it implies your specific ideas about a Creator? The cosmological argument works equally well for Allah, or Yog-Soggoth, or some purely deistic Creator with no more personal concern for our worship or well-being than we might have for a bacterial colony in a Petri dish. Indeed, it's not obvious why the Creator would need to still exist.
Oh, and again: we infer a builder from a log cabin because we know that this is how log cabins arise; we may well have seen them built. We infer a builder based on the assumption of uniformity of nature, and of similar effects arising from similar causes. But we observe adaptions and species arising from natural causes: mutations, selection, and genetic drift, not from invisible species-manufacturers magicking them into existence. On the other hand, we don't observe the impenetrable limits around evolution that would restrict changes to "within kinds," so there seems no reason not to infer large-scale adaptions and diversity from the same causes that produce small-scale adaptions and diversity.
"Faith," like a lot of English words, has a range of meanings, some of them at any given time not recognized by dictionaries, but religious faith may be reasonably defined as confidence in an idea disproportionate to the evidence for it. You will note that even granting that your so-called evidence for God is, in fact, evidence for some sort of a deity, it is definitely going beyond that evidence to assert that the deity must be, or is even likely to be, your God, as described by your interpretation of the scriptures you regard as inspired.
Oh, and absolute morality? Not everyone concedes that it does exist (there's a rather wide range between immutable, universal moral rules that exist apart from any beings with particular natures who are concerned with behaving morally, on the one hand, and complete moral anarchy, on the other). It's certainly hard to prove, especially given your theological baggage. There were Christians on both sides of the debate over slavery, for example, and it seems to me that the pro-slavery side had quite good biblical arguments. If you don't like those arguments, you undercut the idea that your God, Who inspired the Bible, is the source of absolute morality (and let's not even get into the alleged genocide against the Canaanites: pretty much everyone today who accepts that absolute morality exists would argue that that sort of thing violates it.
The default position is agnosticism: we do not know, and we do not even know that we can know, until it is demonstrated otherwise.
24 36 Revival,
ReplyDeleteI think you've summed it up well. Atheists have convinced themselves that there is virtue in skepticism. When confronted with evidence for God, they can simply ignore it by saying it's unconvincing. No more thought is required.
Thanks for visiting and for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Steven J,
ReplyDeleteYou said, “If I find a cabin in the woods, I don't necessarily assume that you built it. Even if you tell me you did, I might find your claim unconvincing. Even if I concede that time, space, and matter need an explanation but a Being able to create them doesn't (and that's a rather large concession, you must admit), does "creation implies a Creator" mean that it implies your specific ideas about a Creator? The cosmological argument works equally well for Allah, or Yog-Soggoth, or some purely deistic Creator with no more personal concern for our worship or well-being than we might have for a bacterial colony in a Petri dish. Indeed, it's not obvious why the Creator would need to still exist.”
I agree. The default position should be, “I don't know who built it,” not, “I don't believe anyone built it.” In theism, the starting paradigm should be agnosticism and not atheism.
You said, “"Faith," like a lot of English words, has a range of meanings, some of them at any given time not recognized by dictionaries, but religious faith may be reasonably defined as confidence in an idea disproportionate to the evidence for it.”
I don't agree that's a reasonable definition at all. It's a straw man caricature of faith offered by atheists in order to ridicule religious faith. Did you see the quote I included from Dawkins? “Faith is belief without and against evidence and reason; coincidentally that's also the definition of delusion.”
I believe that many of the facts presented in the Bible can be confirmed by science. However, I also believe the Bible to be an accurate historical record. If you want to exclude the Bible as “evidence” based on your arbitrary definition of “scientific evidence,” that's your problem. However, it's compelling evidence to me.
If I wrote in to a newspaper claiming to believe in a flying spaghetti monster for whom there is no historical evidence, no incarnation, no witnesses, nor any evidence of any kind whatsoever that it really existed, that might fit your definition of faith. That is not the kind of faith Christians have.
You said, “You will note that even granting that your so-called evidence for God is, in fact, evidence for some sort of a deity, it is definitely going beyond that evidence to assert that the deity must be, or is even likely to be, your God, as described by your interpretation of the scriptures you regard as inspired.”
The Bible talks about things like God creating animals according to kinds; that's consistent with what we observe. The Bible says there was a global deluge; that's consistent with what we observe. The Bible talks about the sons of Abraham being delivered out of Egypt and given the promised land of Israel; that's consistent with what we observe. The Bible talks about the Person of Jesus who is the Word made Flesh; it says He lived, died, and rose again and was seen alive by many of His followers; this is all consistent with the historical evidence. All of these things, and many other things I could say about the Bible, have convinced me that it is true.
I'm a theist by default; I'm a Christian because of the evidence.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Amen!
DeleteThank you Mr. Bentley for a rational rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible, in and of itself, is evidence in precisely the sense that the Illiad is evidence. Other sources of evidence confirm some and disconfirm other details of both texts. The world is replete with books that contain a mixture of true and false claims, and the truth of some of them is not proof of their perfect and entire inerrancy.
ReplyDeleteDawkins' definition is fair, as regards creationism: people whose faith does not dictate going without and even against evidence do not need statements of faith declaring that nothing anyone discovers could ever conceivably prove them wrong. But I did not go so far as Dawkins; I merely stated that faith is more confidence in a proposition than the evidence warrants; that may include beliefs with no evidence but, well, it also includes concluding that if Luke is right about "asiarchs" and Pontius Pilate he must also be right about the virgin birth. That simply doesn't logically follow.
It is absurd to argue that we observe that horses and donkeys share a common ancestor but that not that humans and chimpanzees do. It is absurd to suppose that a global flood can account for faunal segregation in the fossil record -- the lack not merely of Precambrian rabbits but of any modern mammal species, genera, or families among the fossils of dinosaurs and ichthyosaurs. And how is the story of the Exodus confirmed by our observations: the entire story is written not in the Aramaic-Egyptian creole we'd expect the authors to use if their history was as described (origins as wandering Arameans, soujourn in Egypt for centuries, near-complete replacement of the original population and enslavement of the rest) in the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges, but in the very language of the Canaanites themselves. Many things can, on the other hand, be consistent with the historical evidence if the historical evidence is sufficiently paltry and fragmentary, including many false statements.
Way to go Mr. Bentley
ReplyDelete