The Diaglogue Continues: A Comparison of Atheism & Christianity

For those of you who haven't visited Enter the Door Within or haven't been by in a while, I've been dialoguing with a gentleman named Robert about the nature of atheism and how it compares to Christianity. The dialogue continues in this new post:

Hi Robert,

Sorry you haven't been knighted. We do that sort of thing around here, me being a fantasy author and all. Say the word and I might be able to arrange a dubbing ceremony. ;-)

You Wrote: I like that you recognize we’ve arrived at different conclusions, though I’m not sure Christian theology itself allows for such equivocation in its position toward the "un-saved".

When I call you a truth-seeker, I mean that you are interested in the BIG Questions of life and that you are using all of your intellect to try and process the evidence and draw conclusions. I did not mean to imply that I believe you've found the truth. LOL There's time yet for that. In fact, equating yourself with the "unsaved" might not be accurate, in a sense. God, who Christians believe is outside of time, knows the past, present, and future. Perhaps in some future day, you will believe in Jesus. If that is so, then God knows you only as "saved." Kind of mind-boggling, isn't it?

In fact, I pray that you will come to believe in God and His only Son Jesus. You would be a powerful ally. I picture you much like a Paul sort of person. Educated, witty, decisive...convinced of your position. For Paul, it took a personal experience with God to turn him 180 degrees. Have you ever thought about what it would take for you to change your mind and believe? Just food for thought.

I'd like to respond to your comments:

Point 1: Rise of atheism

You Wrote: "One fairly comprehensive survey of the data on religious belief concluded that "Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism."

This is an absolutely brilliant point, and I'm very glad you brought it up. The implied meaning of this study should not be missed by those shopping for truth: The more affluence, comfort, and pleasure a society has, the higher the rate of atheism (and presumably the lower the rate of belief in God). The more pain, difficulty, and hardship a society has, the lower the rate of atheism (and presumably the higher the rate of belief in God).

This phenomena suggests the necessity of pain and perhaps (perhaps, I say for I am not God and do not know His mind like my own), reveals one of the reasons God allows pain. When people become successful and wealthy or reach the highest echelon of some field of interest, they tend to feel self-sufficient. "Look what I have made of myself." God is too often forgotten. But introduce a lost job or some other discomfort, and people seek God out. In the months immediately following 9-11, church attendance surged in the United States. People were rocked out of their comfort zones and sought God. Interestingly, church attendance returned to normal ranges within two months of the event. It seems likely (based on the survey you provided) that things returned to normal, comfortable life, and so…people forgot their need of God."

Point 2: Does the Logical Problem of Evil Prove that God Does Not Exist?

You Wrote: "I think you have a misunderstanding of logic, which results in this faulty objection. What’s more, when you draw out the implications of this objection, you remove any basis for claiming any sort of understanding of God."

I might have a misunderstanding of logic, but I don't think it's demonstrated here. ;-) I made the claim that an all-knowing God would likely have reasoning above that which we understand. To support this, I discussed the differences in reasoning employed by human father and child. This does not imply (as you claim) that we, the lesser beings, cannot understand ANYTHING about superior God.

Your argument is a bit of a non sequitur. You were attempting to point out that: If I claim that, by human logic, we cannot understand why God allows evil in the world, that we cannot, by human logic, understand anything about God. This conclusion does not follow, and a myriad of observations bear out the conclusion's inadequacies. A young child may not understand his father's reasoning in a certain situation, but a child can understand many other aspects of his human father.

You Wrote: "The logical problem of evil simply demonstrates how, in accordance with the premises Christians assert or believe about God, his existence is incompatible with the existence of evil. To deny the conclusion, you’d have to deny one or more of your own premises about God."

This is an example of the kind of fallacy that atheists commit in nearly every debate with Christians I've heard. Atheists take a faulty understanding of Christian doctrine, define incomplete premises that they purport are believed by Christians, and then, atheists knock down the argument they themselves have constructed. This is a "straw man" argument. Here's how you've done this:

Christians believe God is all good. Christians believe God made everything that exists. Evil exists. Therefore, one of two conclusions follow: either God made evil and is not all good --or-- God does not exist. It sounds very reasonable, but the second premise contain the errors that lead to the very narrow--and very faulty--conclusions.

First, Christians believe that God made every--THING that EXISTS. But this only applies to what God made in Creation as described in Genesis. God made the universe. God made the earth. God made people. God made land and sea. God made all living things. When God was finished, He said, "It is good." And it was. He made all of the cosmos and all of nature, and all the humans he created were good.

God made all of the things listed in Genesis, but not the things that man has made. If I order a pizza, I don't believe for one moment that God made the pizza. Some guy named Sid who works at Ledo's made the pizza. You might argue that God made all the raw materials (cheese, sauce, crust…Sid), and that because God made the raw materials, He is "guilty" of making the pizza. That's nonsense. I'm a teacher. If I give a student a pencil, and he draws a valuable work of art with that pencil, did I make the drawing? Did the factory that made the pencil make the art? Or maybe it's the pencil sharpener producer? I'm working on an Apple computer right now. Steve Jobs would be pretty ticked off if he knew God made this computer.

Addressing Evil: Evil is not a THING; it is a concept. For evil to EXIST, one must choose to disobey and/or commit a wrong action…in the Christian sense, evil is anything that fails to love and honor God or falls short of loving our neighbor. God made the man. God gave the man choice. But, God did not make man's decision for him. Man chose to sin all on his own.


You Wrote: "But let us assume an understanding of God is outside of logic (even under your own view of logic). I submit we remove any basis for ascribing good or evil to anything. The Holocaust, for example, is generally regarded by us human as the epitome of evil. Assuming you agree, on what basis do you share this regard? Perhaps, as the child in your example, you lack the wisdom to see God’s reasoning behind it. It only appears to you as evil, but for an “all-knowing God,” the Holocaust was necessary to bring about something better."

Not necessary, but redeemable. God did not cause the Holocaust. Evil men did these things. However, in countless stories like Corrie ten Boom's story, people were driven to God by the horrors of the Nazis. A Holocaust survivor, Francis Horzac, came to my school just this past week. One of the students asked him, how he survived. His answer: the Lord. My faith in the Lord brought me through.

When you submit above that we remove any basis for ascribing good or evil to anything, you are merely following atheism to its logical conclusion. For in atheism, there cannot be any ultimate good. If there is no God, then "good" must be manufactured by mankind's imagination. After all, according to evolution, we are all merely accidents. There was no creator. We just are.

What makes one person's good any better than another's? Popular opinion? Culture? Any answer to that question, begs the question all over again. If I answer that "good" should be defined as whatever benefits people, you must then ask, who am I to decide thus? David Hume, a Scottish Philosopher frequently quoted by atheists, made a poignant statement when he said, "You cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is.'" Morality does not come from science.

Of course, I don't believe for a moment that there is no right and wrong. I believe atheists, Christians, Muslims--all people--are made in the image of their creator--who is the ultimate Definer of Right and Wrong. I believe that the commonality of right and wrong between cultures throughout history is strong evidence that, as the Bible communicates in Romans 2:14-15, "the law {of God} is written on their hearts."

Robert, you may find this interesting: even Richard Dawkins, the famous God Delusion author and atheistic evangelist, reveals that there is a transcendent Right and Wrong. In a debate against Christian Apologist John Lennox, Dawkins describes this ethereal "good" as "something in the air" that informs all men of what is right and wrong. "Whatever it is," he goes on to say, "it does not come from religion." Amazing. Dawkins is willing to admit that there is a transcendent truth...or right and wrong...but it's the agent of that truth that he cannot endure.

But, then again, that's Dawkins' agenda. In the documentary "Expelled," Dawkins admitted that he believed in a sort of intelligent design, but thought that it was likely that Sentient Aliens seeded earth with the building blocks of life. No, it couldn't be an intelligent designer-God, but it could be aliens. Hmmm...

Flaw 2: We are attempting to define “good” with a human definition.

You Wrote: "This objection is easy to demonstrate as unfounded, and it starts with a simple question: What is the divine definition of good? Remember, you’ve ruled out the human definition as a misunderstanding."

I don't believe that you've demonstrated my objection is unfounded at all. Your question is very easy to answer: The divine definition of good is: Jesus. He is the standard. We Christians ought to be all about becoming as much like Him as we can.

But in one sense, you're right about a human understanding of good. And maybe this is what you were trying to indicate. C.S. Lewis put it this way "If He {God} is not (in our sense) good, we shall obey, if at all, only through fear--and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent fiend." We humans do know enough of good to call God good. However, we also recognize that God is better. His degree of "goodness" is at a level of purity that we find very hard to define or comprehend. C.S. Lewis explains the dynamic much better than I can, "Beyond all doubt, His (God's) idea of 'goodness' differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked to simply reverse your moral standards."

In Spite of the Flaws, the Question Needs Answering.

Answer #1: Evil Exists Because We Brought It On Ourselves

You Wrote: "This explanation has always struck me as wholly unsatisfactory. Christians often conflate Adam and Eve with "man" and "we". Pardon? These are the two people, not all of humanity, who allegedly introduced sin. So the rest of humanity must suffer for the actions which they were in no way involved with? Huh?"

Again, this shows a misunderstanding of Christian theology. It is not Christians who assign sin to all mankind through Adam and Eve. God does in the Bible. The Bible tells us that the sin of Adam indelibly besmirches all of humanity with sin, and that sin separates us from God.

But let's pretend your premise is true and that Adam and Eve's sin did not stain all of mankind and creation. Do you know anyone who has not sinned: lied, stolen, failed to love, been selfish, etc.?? I know I'm guilty. I suspect you are too. So even if Adam and Eve's original sin didn't color us sinful, we each commit enough of our own.

You Wrote: "I need not point out that no such persons as Adam and Eve ever existed, and even if they did, geneticists have demonstrated we would not be their offspring."

Actually, you do need to point this out. I believe that Adam and Eve did exist, and that all people descended from them. In fact, there's quite a bit of scientific literature out there that suggest a single common ancestor for men and women:

T. Adler, 5/27/95, "Lineage of Y chromosome boosts Eve theory", Science News, Vol. 147, Pg. 326.

Ann Gibbons, 2/26/93, "Mitochondrial Eve Refuses to Die", Science, Vol. 259, Pg. 1249-1250.

N. Goldman and N. H. Barton, 6/11/92, "Genetics and Geography", Nature, Vol. 357, Pg. 440-441.

You can read excerpts from those articles on this SITE.

In tossing out that curt dismissal of Adam and Eve, I wonder, did you even read the article you linked us to?

This is a direct quote from the article:

But the finding raises new questions, not least because our most recent paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one.

The team believes there is an explanation. They propose that the human genetic blueprint evolved as a mosaic, with different pieces of modern DNA emerging and spreading throughout the human population at different times.

Note the key word: believe. These scientists drew up family trees based on samples of genetic material from 1,062 men. But what they've concluded is a theory at best. But I want you to think about their conclusions: What they are saying is that all women CAN be traced back to a single ancestor. Likewise, all men can be traced back to a common male ancestor.

But these scientists are clearly having problems with their findings that the genetic Eve was 84,000 years older than our genetic Adam. 84,000 YEARS! Talk about a long distance relationship. lol. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that one set of their results was mistaken. If their estimate of a genetic Eve is correct, and she existed 143, 000 years ago, then, there must have been an Adam back there with her or procreation doesn't happen.

Answer #2: Evil Exists Because Real Love Requires Free Will

You Wrote: "The Free Will Defense was crafted when it became clear that the Biblical explanation lacked a historical or even moral basis. One cannot subscribe to both explanations. The first says evil was introduced by the actions of (a couple) humans, but the second explanation says evil was part of God’s plan all along. If so, why the pretense of blaming humans for evil? And since evil is necessary for me to love God, what exactly do I need a savior for again?"

First Robert, who told you when and for what reason the "free will defense" was "crafted?" That is an assumption built on presupposition. The free will defense has been around a LONG time, at least since Saint Augustine. Nonetheless, it is a compelling defense.

I have reasoned above that the existence of the concept of evil and man's evil actions, does not disprove God. I won't repeat the conceptual framework. But I must respond to the portion in red above where you claim that evil was part of God's plan all along. This is another non sequitur. Or do you mean that because God gave man free will that God must have known that man could choose evil? And if God did know that man could or even would choose evil, that still does not follow that God did the evil. Again, He is the maker of men, not the maker of their decisions.

When you said that evil is necessary for me(any person) to love God, you equate free will with evil. I think we'd both agree that free will is a good thing not evil. If I have free will, I can freely choose to give my love to whomever I wish. Evil is not required. It's just a possibility. The second part of the equation where you ask what you need a savior for? Well, the answer for that is that you are (just as I am) entirely culpable for your own sin. In each situation in life where you could have loved but instead hurt, where you could have told the truth, but instead lied, where you could have given, but instead took, you made a choice.

You Wrote: "In any case, the Free Will Defense is insupportable on a number of grounds. And if you happen to agree with the Psalmist in 139:16, belief even in a free will becomes problematic."

I've yet to read a compelling attack on the free-will defense. But, my friend, Psalm 139:16 is no problem for free will, especially if you read all of Psalm 139 and gain some context. This psalm is one of my personal favorites about God and how he knew us as a person even before our birth. The verse tells of God knowing exactly what we would do every day of our lives. God is omniscient, so I have no problem with this Psalm and free will.


Point 3: About the Flood

You Wrote: We can exchange links to sites, but the fact remains: almost no scientist or geologist believes a worldwide flood occurred 4,000 years ago. The best refutation for a global flood I’ve seen comes from a Christian geologist. His articles are online for you to read. They’re very comprehensive.

This is kind of a backdoor appeal to number fallacy. When you say almost no scientist or geologist believes in a worldwide flood, what would that percentage be? Is it 70%, 85%? Just because a majority of people don't believe in a global flood doesn't make it false.

The fact is that plenty of geologists and scientists believe in a global flood (the dating of it is debatable). All the links I listed in the reply give you facts and quotes from quite a few of these flood-believers. ;-) Of course, just because a minority of scientists and geologists DO believe in a global flood, doesn't make it true either. I don't want to appeal to numbers either. Truth seekers should examine the evidence themselves and draw their own conclusions.

You Wrote: But I think the larger issue you hoped to support with the example of the Flood is the reliability and historicity of the Bible. It may not be well-known within evangelical Christian circles, but the field of Biblical archeology is dying a slow death, as its remaining members have long abandoned the notion that the Bible represents accurate history, and have placed much of it in the “myth and legend” category. Listen to what a couple of them have to say:

"Biblical Archeology doesn’t really exist today in the way it once did." -Dr. Ronald Hendel

"With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers…much of what is called in the English Bible 'poetry,' 'wisdom' and 'devotional literature' must also be eliminated from historical consideration…Ruth, Esther, Job and Daniel, historical novellae with contrived 'real-life settings,' the latter dating as late as the second century B.C.' -William G. Dever

Now earlier on, you brushed aside my sources by saying "we could trade links." I'm sure we can. I note that you've given us a couple of quotes, however, to support your claim that Biblical Archeology is dying a slow death. I'm guessing it's not dying out fast enough for some. There are many who study Biblical Archeology and many who accept the Bible as very accurate history. See links below or brush them aside. It doesn't change the fact that they are there.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/bible_historical_evidence.html

Really good book:
http://www.amazon.com/Stones-Cry-Out-Archaeology-Reveals/dp/1565076400/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1

http://www.bib-arch.org/

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/



In closing:

God gives evidence enough to convince those who want to find Him, but not enough to convince someone against his will. I suggest to you Robert, and to any truth-seekers who visit: read the Bible, and even if you doubt anyone is listening, ask God to help you understand His truth.

I am convinced that you will find what you've always been looking for, always needed--something that resonates deep within you like nothing else--if you read the Scriptures seeking God rather than parsing the prooftexts for ammunition.

A Continuing Dialogue with the Opposing Team

The following was WAY too long for a comment, so I thought I'd make post out of it. I recently posted about the apparent rise of atheism. One of the comments came from another truthseeker. I hope he doesn't mind the higher profile response. Here it is in its great bulk:

Hi, Robert

First, welcome to Enter the Door Within. You realize, of course, that posting here may well be the first step on a very “unexpected” adventure. ;-)

But I hope you were using the phrase “Opposing team” in a facetious way, as it seemed. I don't see us as opponents, but rather truth seekers who have, through any number of variables, arrived at different conclusions.

You raise some great points—certainly fair questions—and some of them are foundational issues that we all may face on our faith journeys. I by no means believe that I’ve got it all figured out, but I’ll do my best to address your concerns.

Point 1: The Rise of Atheism
Certainly there could be a myriad of reasons why Atheistic manifestos are becoming bestsellers. I’m not a bit surprised that pollsters have discovered a trend, showing people pulling away from traditional religions. I’m reasonably certain that people are slowly pulling away from many “traditional” ways of doing things. Each generation seems to rebel against the previous, much as teens question the authority, wisdom, and experience of their parents. Of course, in the eventual analysis, leaving traditional ways of doing things does not always turn out to be a very wise thing.

Point 2: Does the Logical Problem of Evil Prove that God Does Not Exist?
This is a bedrock question. On some level, we all probably have questions related to this apparent quandary. I’ll offer my thoughts, but there are several dozen books that answer this question much more comprehensively than I ever could. C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain, Phillip Yancey’s Where is God When it Hurts?, Ravi Zacharias’ The End of Reason, and a myriad of others going all the way back to St. Augustine’s writings analyze the issues with amazing clarity.

But here’s my take: The problem, stated another way is: If God exists, and God is All Good and All Powerful, how can He allow evil in the world? It seems like a simple logic problem: A=B and B=C, so A must be equal to C. But actually, it’s not that simple––not by a longshot. I believe there are at least two fundamental flaws in the question itself.

Flaw 1: We are attempting to understand God with human logic.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, as Christians believe Him to be, what in the world makes us think He will subscribe to our logic? Time and time again, God confounds human logic. Man expected the Messiah to come as a conquering warrior. God came as a child. Man expected God to win a military victory. God won the victory by dieing on a cross. Even in my own life, God has defied logic. I wanted to be a rock star. I ended up a teacher. I had no plans to run a Bible study at my friend’s house, but if I hadn’t, I’d have never me my wife. Biblical examples, historic examples, personal examples show a God who does not need to conform to our logic.

Not a perfect word picture here, but somewhat illuminating: Think of a young child living in a third world country. The child has always loved a particular cow in the village flock. But this cow goes sick with a very infectious disease—one that will spread and eventually kill all the other cattle, eliminating the entire village’s food supply. The child’s father takes the cow out back and kills it. The child is horrified. The act appeared to be the very epitome of evil. How could his father do such a thing?

But the child lacks the wisdom to understand the father’s reasoning. The child’s logic is far too simple to string together the reasons that led the father to his action. If a human father’s wisdom and logic is far above that of a human child, then how much wider is the gulf between mankind’s logic and an all-knowing God?

Flaw 2: We are attempting to define “good” with a human definition.
Using the same reasoning as above, what makes human kind think that it understands the concept of “good?” I mean, sure, we all think we know a good act from a bad act. A good sandwich from a bad sandwich. A good player from a bad player. Good breath from bad breath. But what about real, moral good? How do we know that? Where did this innate knowledge of good and bad come from?

Here’s what I’m getting at: some would say that a Good God cannot allow Evil. There is evil, so therefore God cannot exist. But that implies that there is a static, rock solid measure of good. At this point, the atheist must pause. Because to allow that there is an ultimate good requires a source of ultimate good, and it cannot be manmade. If it were, then anyone’s definition of good would have to suffice. So when a skeptic attempts to accuse God of doing evil, he admits that there is an ultimate measure of good. And in so doing, the skeptic implies that God exists, thus defeating the point at the outset.

Think of the child in the previous example. The naïve child believes his father has done evil by killing the cow. But has the father done evil? No, in fact, the father saved all the other cattle and the village full of people besides. In fact, the father has done something very noble. It’s just that the child’s concept of good is insufficient to define the situation. And this is where even the brightest most compassionate human finds his own definition of good: insufficient wisdom, experience, and perspective when compared to an all-knowing God.

Again, we are humans. We do not have all knowledge. We do not know the past or the future (sometimes not even the present) in its entirety. Gandalf said, “Not even the very wise can see all ends.” To be able to see all ends would make us, well…God. So without the ability that God must have, how could we possibly think we know what good is?

In Spite of the Flaws, the Question Needs Answering.
You might reasonably argue at this point that all we have is human logic and a human definition of good. All we have is human understanding. So how can a loving, all powerful, good God, allow evil?

I mean, surely we can all agree that many of the ghastly deeds we hear about on the news are evil. Surely soldiers killing children and raping women is evil. Surely the Holocaust where more than six million Jewish people were murdered, snuffed from the earth as if less than human—surely, the Holocaust was evil. I agree. As an aside, it is grievous to think that since 1973 more than 48 million children have been murdered in abortions. The justification—that these fetuses are not humans—is eerily similar to Hitler’s rationale, and yet so many people think abortion is good, a right even. That’s another topic for another day.

But it leads us again to our own definition of good. It’s what we have to go on. So, how can an all good God allow evil?

First, a preface: if you are hurting because you’ve just lost a loved one; or you’re aghast at the horrible nature of recent headlines; or you’ve just seen first hand the devastation of a natural disaster, no answer I can give—no matter how logical it may be—will sound logical to you. You are too close to the pain. We are emotional creatures, and emotions often cloud thinking.

Answer #1: Evil Exists Because We Brought It On Ourselves
This is the Biblical answer. In the beginning there was no evil in the world. Man and woman were in paradise where there was no pain, fear, or sadness. People lived in direct communion with God. But, this all changed the moment man sinned. That sin, like the blackest, most potent ink poured into clear water, colored the rest of human history with the horrors we call evil. The Bible clearly indicates that ALL of creation, including the environment, is sacked by this poison

Answer #2: Evil Exists Because Real Love Requires Free Will
Dozens of historical scholars including Saint Augustine and C.S. Lewis have advanced this concept, and for me, it makes total sense. God created mankind for relationship with Him. God loves mankind and wants mankind to love back. But love cannot be forced and still be love. God could have created robots smitten with God, but their affection would be hollow. I’d even go so far as to say that for God to create people and force them to love Him…is a perversion of love, the kind that most of us would call evil.

No, God wanted real relationship…real love. In order for mankind to love God, God had to give mankind free will. But free will means that God’s creation could potentially choose not to love. And we did. And we still do. Done anything selfish lately? Yep, me too. So, evil was chosen by mankind because we had a choice and made the wrong choice.

Answer #3: Pain Can Be a Good Thing
I’m about to get on your nerves. Nerves—that’s what I’m getting at. They are the pain receptors of our bodies. We get close to fire, and our nerves warn us that harm will come to use if we continue toward the flame. Would anyone argue that the pain one feels when you get close to fire is evil? Would anyone out there like to get rid of your nerves? I doubt it. There’s actually a very rare disorder where nerves don’t function. It makes life nearly impossible for the poor souls that have the disease.

About five years ago, I lost a good friend. The guy was in his early thirties, as kind as can be, and as strong as an ox. Then, WHAM, brain cancer. He was gone. I got to watch his wife and two little boys grieve. And I have to admit, I was mad at God for taking him. The guy who died, I wasn’t worried about him. He was in heaven. And he was denied maybe what 60 years of life on earth? Not much compared to eternity. No, I was hurting for those left behind.

But what if God, in His infinite wisdom, knew that taking this man would lead many others to believe in Him? What if the eternity of many depended on this one man dying? As it turns out, I would be thunderstruck if anything short of hundreds of people came to believe in Jesus as a direct result of this one man’s passing. If you could have attended the funeral and heard his widow speak, you’d know what I mean.

And let’s not forget the ultimate example of pain turning to good. Jesus. The most innocent man to ever live, God’s son in the flesh—mocked, spat upon, scourged, tortured, and murdered. And yet, God used this horrific event to at last defeat sin and death and offer salvation to ALL of mankind.

In summary, God is all good. And He is the only one who can fully define “good.” God makes no evil, but evil exists because mankind has chosen it. Even so, God can use even the most horrifying evils and use it for multiplied good.


Point 3: About the Flood
You made the comment, “I've learned that when Christians quote non-Christians it's best to do a little digging because often the quotes are taken out of context, come from a very dated or obscure source, or refer to something else entirely.”

I reject this claim utterly in that you point it at Christians. If ANYONE quotes anyone, it’s best to do a little digging because all too often people are misquoted. Seriously, before you buy into any written or spoken word, check the sources.

Here are some links concerning the possibility of a worldwide flood:

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide%20flood.htm

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/global-flood-faq.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/flood.asp

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/worldwideflood.htm


As to whether Carrington referred to the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, I can’t be sure. There are many creation scientists who believe that the worldwide flood of Noah and the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Event are one and the same. The huge numbers of years (65 million years ago) may not be accurate at all. Most radiometric dating systems are somewhat questionable. Here’s a good article that explains the basics of dating methods and the potential problems.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html


Point 4: Appeals to Authority
You wrote: “Appeals to one's authority are not very convincing. There are others, many perhaps with deeper credentials, who take a different view.” There is always someone else with better credentials. That does not necessarily discount what I have to say. In the end, you need to do your own homework. And…in the end, you’ll end up agreeing or disagreeing with a lot of opinions of a lot of people. Much of what we’re arguing here ends up being metaphysical and therefore, unproveable. In other words, no one can categorically prove or disprove the existence of God. No one can categorically prove that creation or evolution happened. To have such knowledge would make us very nearly gods ourselves. That does not mean there is no evidence to consider and draw conclusions. That’s what this discussion is really about: evidence and conclusions.

Point 5: False Dichotomy?
I wrote: “The problem is, either people don't want to do the research because it steals time from their lifestyle --or-- they don't want to believe their findings because it impacts their lifestyle.—referring to the potential rationales employed by people who do not believe in God.”

You wrote: “This is a false dichotomy and is firmly debunked by the many, many individuals who were Christians and became atheists or something else. A number of these former Christians were highly educated apologists who studied the theology for years before deciding it just wasn't true.”

As it reads in my original text, it is a false dichotomy. That is: two choices presented as an either/or when there are actually other possibilities. But actually, what I intended is potential theories as to why some people do not believe. I really don’t think most people to the research. I can tell you personally that many of the people with whom I’ve had theological discussions certainly did not delve into the matter as deeply as I have—by their own admission. My question to all people who do not dig deeper into the existence of God is this: This is potentially the most important decision you will ever make and could impact not just this life but eternity, SO why aren’t you expending every ounce of effort to examine the evidence?

Point 6: Choosing to Believe
Here’s where you lost me, Sir Robert. I was arguing that choosing to believe something must not be based on “how we want it to be.” I might really want my favorite team to win the Super Bowl, and I might really want to celebrate their victory. But if I choose to celebrate the victory when my team DIDN’T win, then I’m guilty of folly.

I wrote: “Choosing not to believe in God in this way is akin to being starving but refusing to eat because you feel sure someone else in the world might also starve.”

You wrote: “One hears this argument frequently from Christians, but would it convince you if "God" was replaced with "Allah" or "Zeus"?

I stand by my assertion that belief, especially belief on the magnitude of Theology, cannot be based on wishful thinking. We examine the evidence: historical, archeological, scientific, empirical, experiential, and we choose. I certainly wouldn't be convinced by other gods because I don't believe the evidence is nearly as compelling for other gods.

Point 7: Atheism and Agnosticism
I don’t wish to argue semantics, and maybe there’s a gradation you meant to better explain, but your definitions of these two terms are incorrect.

I wrote: "Agnosticism is a little different than atheism in that agnostics do not deny that there could be a god. They just don't know for sure and won't put a name to this god if there is one.”

You wrote: “Actually, this describes atheism. The agnostic position is more akin to "I just don't know."

I’m sure that definitions to these terms vary depending on the person who is using them, but according to the Oxford English Dictionary, an atheist is someone who denies the existence of god. An agnostic claims there may be a god but that it is impossible to know for sure.

Until our next dialogue…

-WtB

Atheism on the Rise?

Have you taken a look at the NY Times or Amazon Bestseller List over the last year or two? If you have, then you've no doubt noticed an influx of nonfiction titles promoting Atheism. Letter to a Christian Nation, The God Delusion, The God Who Wasn't There--just to name a few.

I'm wondering about the recent influx, and I suspect that this is nothing more than the cyclical nature of pop culture. After all Bertrand Russell and others attempted to do this years ago. His ideas came and went. And now, here we go again.

I don't have the slightest problem with people writing about Atheism. They have as much a right to write about their faith as we do ours. The interesting thing to me is how many people are buying up this propaganda, and, as an extension, how much the press is promoting it. What does this mean? Are people fed up with Religion? Or are they looking for excuses for evil behavior? I'm not sure the answer is that simple. And I'm not sure the answer is the same for every atheist.

Nonetheless, Christians need to be ready with answers--and answers shared in love. Yes, be direct. Do not tolerate the lack of logic. But do not fight fire with fire. Fight with love. Understand that beneath the brash, contentious tone of an atheist may be a hurting heart: someone who's been wronged--even by Bible-toting Christians.

Respect a well-reasoned argument. Consider the time and heart invested in the atheist's claims, but reason with him and show the faults in his logic. Present the truth and show why the truth makes sense.

All this thinking came about when I "accidentally" stumbled onto a woman's blog the other day. I was searching the Web for something completely different, and I found her blog. On her sidebar, I noticed a curious title. It was something about Christmas Carols, Atheism, and *Agnosticism.

At first, I thought the post was going to be a Christian message. The author spoke lovingly about weeping whenever she heard certain Christmas carols and of fond memories. But then, she revealed that she has left the faith and considers herself to be agnostic. It sounded like the turning point for her came from reading one of Joseph Campbell's books on world myths, specifically Campbell's argument that Christianity is just one myth among many--and a copycat myth at that. This blogger's conclusions saddened me. She reasoned with Campbell that Christianity simply cannot be true because it SEEMS to borrow from other world myths. That is one conclusion that can be drawn. But it is NOT the only conclusion.

What follows is my reply to this blogger. Take it for what it's worth. Maybe you know someone who is struggling with belief/unbelief. Maybe you've had doubts yourself.

Never alone.

-WtB

Please forgive my intrusion on your blog, but I found it by accident as I was looking for exercises for my students about strong/weak verbs. Loved your idea about thinking like a screenwriter, ie: how am I going to show this to the folks who watch my move? Great tip.

Long story short, I saw the mysterious bridge graphic and thought I'd come to homepage of Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy, who use the very same graphic. Then I looked in the sidebar and saw the Atheist/Agnostic Article here and gave it a read.

All I can say is wow. What you wrote is very beautiful. You clearly have the heart of a poet. And while I am in total harmony with your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusions.

I've studied mythology extensively (taught it for eight years) and have read Joseph Campbell's work including The Masks of God. It is indeed amazing that so many ancient cultures had stories closely associated with those recorded in the Christian Bible. And certainly one conclusion could be that all religions and God-notions are myth built out of mankind's hope for goodness and light.

But as C.S. Lewis points out, mankind would never have known to look for goodness and light if there had never been a source of goodness and light. What I'm driving at is a very different conclusion. World myths that predate the Old Testament (or New Testament, for that matter) are amazingly similar for two reasons: 1. the acts these early myths suggest, actually DID happen --or-- 2. God, Himself being outside of time, imprinted His own impact on the world in the hearts of all people.

Concerning 1: Take Noah's flood which is mirrored in many cultural tales. It seems likely that such a catastrophic flood did occur. Geologists the world over have confirmed that certain recent discoveries do indicate a flood on a massive scale.

Evolutionist Richard Carrington, in The Story of Our Earth, a secular publication, admitted,

"Of the many kinds of animals inhabiting the earth at the time vast numbers were swept completely away. Not only individuals, but whole races were destroyed. Extermination overtook the animals of the land, sea and air with equal indifference. When the holocaust was over the whole aspect of life on earth had changed."180/155

Concerning 2: Take the common mythological archetype of the coming chosen one or coming savior. If prior to the beginning of time, God intended to save all people of the world by letting His son come to earth, wouldn't He have given people a desire to look for such a one? Certainly this is not beyond the ability of an all powerful God. So the handful of myth/cultural stories concerning events/people similar to Christianity are eternal echos of God's plan.

I do believe that all people are searching for light. I believe that is because we all realize there's something missing from our lives, a longing we sometimes call melancholy. This is the hunger for God and for heaven. I don't think this hunger for light can be argued against--as you say, too much history supports it. But the question then becomes, WHO is the source of the light we long for?

It would have to be someone beyond ourselves, beyond humanity. We ourselves recognize our own self destructive tendencies and the fickle nature of our feelings. People are prone to letting us down. Emotions and behavior are affected by such subtle things as seasons, weather, workload, nutrition, and such. So the light must be beyond us.

God, a supernatural being, fits the bill. But which God? The answer is the most important answer anyone on earth will ever discover. But how to find it? Vishnu? Mohommad? Budha? Jesus? Who?

There we MUST NOT depart from our ordinary means of making judgments. Most of us decide what to wear based on the preponderance of evidence. Hmmm, weatherman said it's going to be forty degrees. I open the window. It looks cold. It feels cold. The evidence suggests that I will therefore wear a sweater. Imagine you were driving on a one lane road and then stopped at the entrance to a narrow bridge. People explained that if you drive across the bridge, you will be given forty million dollars. I suspect that you would want to get out and inspect the bridge. If there was time, I imagine you'd look it up on the internet or hire an expert on bridges before you ever drove across. It makes sense to examine the evidence.

However, we must avoid making the kind of judgment we make when we choose who we will vote for or what team to like. These judgments are colored, filtered way too much by our history, our upbringing, and our personal preferences. We might vote democratic because a certain issue is important to us. We might pick a favorite team because the quarterback is handsome. If God is real, then He is real whether we prefer him to be or not.

I am a believer in Jesus. But I'm not an easy believer. Unlike the original childlike faith that you had, I scrutinized everything about Christianity. After all, how could there be only one God, one right way to heaven?

I spent years, taking courses in school, studying history, archeology, and even science. I read countless testimonials, considered the experiences of uncountable people of a variety of faiths, and my conclusion was clear: the God of the Bible is real.

The problem is, either people don't want to do the research because it steals time from their lifestyle --or-- they don't want to believe their findings because it impacts their lifestyle. I didn't want to believe in God if that meant there was only one way to heaven. I love people. I want them all to go to heaven whatever they believe. But that's just preference speaking --or wishful thinking. It has nothing to do with the preponderance of evidence for Christianity. Choosing not to believe in God in this way is akin to being starving but refusing to eat because you feel sure someone else in the world might also starve.

In closing, (name of blogger), I am convinced that the reason you cry when you hear Oh Holy Night or Do You Hear What I Hear is that your soul longs for God still. I suspect that your childlike faith in Jesus when you were young made you a Christian. And even though you have abandoned God, HE has not abandoned you. He's hinting, suggesting, and waiting…because He is the Light of the world. And he loves you.

-WtB

*Agnosticism is a little different than atheism in that agnostics do not deny that there could be a god. They just don't know for sure and won't put a name to this god if there is one.