Every couple of months I feel a burst of interest in ‘Atheist vs Theist’-style arguments, both following the arguments of others and doing a bit of arguing myself. The question “Does God exist?” has and continues to fascinated people, few more than I.
Its a question with immense implications, especially from the perspectives of the respective sides, and consequently there is no shortage of people willing to argue their case – often publicly.
And yet, each time I gain an interest in the argument, I am turned off without fail. This time around, I realised one reason why:
Neither side shows particular interest in the actual facts. No-one likes their own view to be challenged, and so we naturally tend to avoid evidence against it (confirmation bias). Its certainly rare that we actively seek opposing views, and maybe even rarer that we give them a chance.
When the Christian claims “there have been no transition fossils found” [which would support evolution] or the atheist claims “there is no evidence that Jesus even existed”, both are guilty of misrepresenting reality. Perhaps they have never actually researched it, perhaps they used biased sources, but somehow there has been a massive communication breakdown.
It is exceedingly frustrating to hear people (from either side) spout ‘facts’ that you know from your own investigation to be bollocks. How much more progress would be made if people took the time to seek opposing viewpoints! Instead of pretending there is no alternative, arguments should provide an analysis and criticism.
One way to prevent yourself from this mistake is, when you are confronted with a difficult debate, to obtain the best argument (be it book, mp3, or video) from the best supporter (or two, or three) of each view. Read them critically, but fairly, and then decide.
I have tried to put this into practice. As a Christian, I decided to read The God Delusion to test my own perspective and arguments. I’m sure Dawkins would be greatly disapointed to hear that I’m still a theist. To his credit, he did spend some time discussing arguments for the existance of God – which means that he at least found some… whether or not they were ever seriously listened to is an interesting thing to consider. However, the arguments he chose to deal with were not the most compelling for me anyway, and nor were his refutations particularly convincing. [Resisting the urge to turn this into a massive tangent]
Final thoughts:
1. I don’t believe anyone will ever prove it conclusively either direction using argument alone.
2. The entire question must not be treated purely academically. In one sense it is helpful to take a step back from the action and evaluate it critically, but never allow yourself to engage only intellectually – the consequences are very real and (potentially) eternal.
3. Ultimately, there is a decision to make: do you believe in and accept Jesus as Lord, God and saviour, and allow him to forgive your sins; or do you reject Him and all that He brings. There is no donkey vote, no avoiding it.
« Beware of False Prophets When I Look Back On My Ordinary Life »
I have been in many debates with people both online and off and i have seen that people will always try and hide what they believe and attack you as much as possible (this is much harder to do in real life then online). And the debate is usally dominated by people who don’t really know what they are talking about in fact most people don’t know more about evolution then monkeies are in there somewhere nad then they go and try to prove/disprove it. If you put an argument you are much more likely to get abuse or they will give you a question rather then answering what you have said. When you say transition fossel are you talking about monkeies turn into humans because if so then a real fossel of that has never been found.
I saw Dawkin’s show of the god delusion and frankly it was rubbish he isn’t the smartest of people and any half educated person can rip him apart as a show host on the BBC did.
I know the feeling! It brought to mind something John Dickson wrote in the excellent book A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions:
There’s not much more to add to that!
But on another topic, yes I too have found people often fire ‘objections’ at each other with no real desire for answers. They are probably better termed excuses. There is a certain point in some discussions where it turns into one person interrogating the other – who is then expected to make a defense. Its hard, at that point, not to feel discouraged as the questions pile on, the answers fall on deaf ears, and their mind will not be moved no matter how convincing your defense. Turning the discussion back into a discussion by up-ending a question can be helpful (“why do you think that?”).
To Christians: no amount of reasoning will convince those who suppress the truth (Romans 1). Pray that the Holy Spirit will open their heart.
To atheists: one special request – get your definition of faith from one who claims to have it, not Dawkins. No matter how many times he repeats it, faith is not believe in the face of evidence. And get your descriptions of God from the book about Him itself, rather than accepting a well-turned phrase.
To all: have a good evening!
what is that trying to say?
Maybe I took it too much out of its context. The sentences immediately before the quote above:
Of course, the principle applies to all viewpoints.
I suppose we met a couple of “bursts” after you wrote this post. I want to take you up on what you say in the last comment: what is faith, Hayesy?
(This is harder than I thought… I just woke up)
Let me first distinguish faith from blind faith, which is what Dawkins means. Blind faith is belief in something without evidence or even in the face of evidence. That is stupid faith, which, incidentally, does not honor God.
Faith involves 3 things: knowledge (or, if you prefer, a proposition), belief that the proposition is true, and resultant action.
You can see that without any of these three faith is not excercised. Without a proposition, there is no object of faith. Without a belief the action is not by faith, but by some other reason (such as coercion, peer-pressure etc). Without action, it isn’t faith but belief.
You can see, also, that faith is not hindered by supporting evidence nor immune from contrary evidence. Far from it: supporting evidence strengthens faith by clarifying the knowledge and strengthening the belief, and while contrary evidence undermines faith, or causes it to be thrown out entirely.
For interest’s sake, I’ll share how the last one (action) is often illustrated:
One day in 1860, Blondin, the great tightrope walker, was again preparing to cross the famous falls. He turned to the huge crown that was watching him intently and asked if they believed he could cross the falls without falling. They shouted their assent. He asked if they believed he could make the walk while carrying another person on his back. Again the crowd roared about their belief in him. But when Blondin turned to a man who was standing nearby and asked if he would be the volunteer, the man adamantly refused.”
It is one thing to believe a man can do something, and quite another to entrust your life to that belief. That is faith.
In Blondin’s case, suppose he carried his manager across safely, showing that he can do it. There might now possibly be a man might be found in the crowd with enough faith (and courage!) to let Blondin carry him. Is his faith any less ‘faith’ for having more information? Of course not.
I appreciate your question, in response to “To atheists: one special request – get your definition of faith from one who claims to have it, not Dawkins” Belief in the face of evidence is not faith, but sheer stupidity. Evidence and true faith complement each other.
We excercise this true faith daily – cars, roofs, chairs, friends etc. A degree of faith in all those things is necessary to live a normal life. It isn’t dumb to live like that: your faith in each of those is based on good evidence. Christians have that same faith, but in Jesus.
Thanks for that. I’ve nothing against faith as so defined, because I’ve got plenty of it myself in things such as you mention: my friends, my workmates, the roof over my head, the chair I’m sitting in.
What we disagree on, of course, is whether there is good evidence on which to base this type of faith in God and Jesus.
This sort of argument doesn’t frustrate me
Couldn’t have said it better myself.