I've
been blogging for a while now; this month makes nine years. My
online discussions with critics, however, go back over 20 years to
the old, AOL chat rooms. I've been on FaceBook and many online
forums like CARM where I've engaged atheists head to head – not
just answering the comments left on my blog. I read other people's
blogs, watch their videos, and listen to their arguments. Suffice it
to say, I've heard about every reason there is that people use to
reject God. Yet in all that time, all the different arguments I've
heard can be grouped into just a few different categories.
Before
I get into the categories, let me just say that I have my doubts that these are the real reasons why people reject God; they are
merely the excuses they give. I think, deep down, they ultimately
reject God because of their sinful, prideful, rebellious nature.
They would prefer to continue in their sin rather than submit to God.
They want to live life how they please and simply are trying to
convince themselves there will be no judgment at the end of it. But
since these are the excuses they give, they are what I will use.
Keep
in mind that critics will seldom limit themselves to just one of
these categories. Usually, it's only one of these things that will
first cause someone to doubt, but once he has rejected the idea of
God completely, he always embrace the other things as well. Here are
the categories I've seen.
Some
people claim to reject God because of the “bad things” they see
in the world. It's common for people to say things like, “Why
does God allow bad things to happen?” This includes not only
people
doing bad things but also natural disasters like earthquakes,
plagues, famines, or tsunamis. Sometimes, there will have been a
personal tragedy in the persons life, like the loss of a loved one or
maybe a divorce or abuse. They believe that God doesn't act at these
times because there is no God.
Other
people claim to reject God because they reject the biblical standards of
morality. They will point to passages like 1 Samuel 15:3, where God
commanded Saul to destroy the city of Amalek and describe it as
genocide. They say a loving God wouldn't condemn things like
homosexuality. Dan
Savage once said that the Bible was “wrong” on slavery
so how can we trust it on things like sexuality? They also question
the “fairness” of God forgiving
really bad people or condemning
“good” people who reject Him. They aren't just questioning
why God let's bad things happen, but claim God Himself is bad.
Critics believe if there were a God, He wouldn't act like this.
People
also claim to reject God because they see no evidence that He exists. I
can't tell you the number of times I've heard people ask, “If
there is a God, why doesn't He just show Himself?” These
critics see the universe operating according to fixed, physical laws
and we don't really need to invoke a god to understand them. Just a
few months ago, I
blogged this quote: Why
is God so stingy with direct evidence?... [T]he supposed miracles
that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre
scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable
verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today
so that we could see that such things are possible.... A loving God
would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further
compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong
evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the
inviolability of the laws of nature.
These critics believe if there were a God, He would make Himself
known in an obvious way.
I
could include people who reject the Bible on the grounds that they
claim it contains contradictions and so can't be divinely inspired.
This is more of an argument for agnosticism than atheism. That is,
they may still think there could be a god, they just don't believe
it's necessarily the Christian God of the Bible. This category isn't
really relevant to my point today. I just raise it in case people
later try to claim I didn't think of it.
As we
review this short (but nearly exhaustive) list of reasons, we see a
theme begin to develop. These people aren't merely searching for God
and not finding Him. Instead, they've imagined how they think God
should act but they can't find a god that acts like that! In other
words, they aren't really rejecting God, they're rejecting a straw
god, one they've created in their own imagination.
If we
look at these reasons objectively, we can see they're non
sequitur. Take the first excuse, for example: bad things happen
so there can't be a god? How exactly does that follow? It's sort of
like saying, “doctors are supposed to heal sick people but,
since there are still sick people, doctors must be imaginary.”
You can see how that doesn't work. The second point suffers the same
way. It makes no sense to say, “I don't think homosexuality is
a sin so if God thinks so He must not be real.”
Finally, no one can seriously claim that God can't be real because
He won't appear on the evening news and tell us He's real. OK, maybe
they do claim that but it still doesn't make sense.
There
is a God. He is loving but He is also just. The bad things that
happen in the world are His judgment for our sins but He has made
salvation available to all who believe. He has redeemed His people
by shedding His own blood and He will restore His creation where
there will be no more death. He also has made Himself known through
His prophets, through His word, and through His Son, who became flesh
and dwelt among us.
It's
no wonder some people can't find God. They're looking for a
capricious god who loves sin. They're not rejecting God; they're
rejecting an imaginary god who doesn't exist.
2 comments:
Take the first excuse, for example: bad things happen so there can't be a god? How exactly does that follow? It's sort of like saying, “doctors are supposed to heal sick people but, since there are still sick people, doctors must be imaginary.”
Strictly speaking, that should be "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent physicians must be imaginary." Finitely knowledgeable physicians of limited power, and even limited concern for their patients, are quite compatible with the continued existence of sick people. But an omnipotent God Who did not desire suffering and evil -- who in fact takes no joy in the wicked perishing -- could construct a world in which these things do not exist (it might be objected that God could not create a world where free will existed and where free will could not be misused to do evil -- which implies that God could not, in fact, create the Heaven that Christian theology has traditionally taught exists). That such a world does not exist implies that God is either not omnipotent or not benevolent in any conventional sense.
Normally, when you call a mental construct a "straw man," you can point to an actual example of the thing described, and say "see, this thing is more complex and nuanced than you credit it with being." Dawkins' description of the biblical God as "the most unpleasant character in all fiction" might be a straw man, since you can compare Dawkins' description with the biblical one and show that the biblical one is not purely sadistic and stupid. But this purely concerns whether Dawkins has properly summarized the Bible's description of God, not whether the Bible's description of God is true.
Someone who argues that a truly loving and just God would not, e.g. order the killing of all males (including infants) and all non-virgin females (while evidently saving the virgin females as sex slaves) is not refuted by showing that the Bible says otherwise; perhaps even if God exists, the Bible is wrong about what He is like (you in fact bring this up, merely to dismiss it as a side issue, whereas it is absolutely crucial).
There are, e.g. deist conceptions of God that are not refuted by His failure to provide us with regular miraculous theophanies. Of course, deism is characterized by a non-interventionist God Who doesn't, e.g. work miracles or provide us with inerrant God-breathed scriptures. A God Who can provide miraculous demonstrations of His power and will on one occasions should be able to -- and presumably would be willing to -- do so on regular occasions.
Steven J,
You said, “Strictly speaking, that should be "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent physicians must be imaginary." Finitely knowledgeable physicians of limited power, and even limited concern for their patients, are quite compatible with the continued existence of sick people. But an omnipotent God Who did not desire suffering and evil -- who in fact takes no joy in the wicked perishing -- could construct a world in which these things do not exist (it might be objected that God could not create a world where free will existed and where free will could not be misused to do evil -- which implies that God could not, in fact, create the Heaven that Christian theology has traditionally taught exists). That such a world does not exist implies that God is either not omnipotent or not benevolent in any conventional sense.”
You can nitpick my analogy but my point remains the same. You're making the existence for God contingent on how you think He would act if He existed but let's not rehash my post. You've raised a different point: you're saying there cannot be a god unless he can create a person who could choose to love him without having the ability to reject him. It sounds to me like you're asking for a god who can make a square circle.
Everyone chooses to accept God or reject Him. Here on earth, we have the freewill to make that choice. Maybe in heaven I will no longer have the ability to sin. Praise God!! But everyone in heaven chose to be there.
Thank you for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment