
I don’t use any apologetics techniques when I talk with atheists. Maybe that’s why my “tactics” impress people.
Frequently I read other blogs, and from time to time I comment on them. I don’t do it a lot; I tend to save comments for people who know me, like the folks on Facebook. That’s because I have found, from my time on Xanga, that some folks are hugely annoyed when you make comments about the stuff they write, and they don’t recognize you or know you or even want any input.
On the other hand, there are many who so desperately want a response, any response, that they go bonkers when you don’t comment on their blogs. A lot of the folks I used to synchroblog with dropped out of the group simply because they weren’t getting the responses, or the level of responses, they wanted. Speaking for myself, I wasn’t inspired enough by what they wrote to post anything—and this is no slight against their writing ability; it either means that I agreed with them, but not wholeheartedly, or that I disagreed with them, but didn’t think it was worth debating… or that I didn’t know what the hell they were talking about, ’cause the stuff that works them into a lather does nothing for me.
I’ll admit it if no one else will: Comments, like blogs, are primarily self-centered. We write and maintain blogs because we think our little opinions are important enough to broadcast to the world via the Internet. We pitch our two cents onto others’ blogs for much the same reason. Some folks only read certain blogs because that blog—unlike their own—has a wider audience for their witty remarks, and lets them comment with impunity. If bloggers won’t let them ride their coattails, the commenters will go away and won’t return. (Much like a lot of my regular readers after I turned the comments off.)
From time to time someone will refer to something I’ve written, and in order to know what they’re talking about—’cause they might be quoting me wrong, or I what I wrote might be wrong, or it might even be that I don’t believe that anymore—I look it up on my blogs. The trouble is that not everything I’ve written is here. I’ve got stuff floating around the ether in all sorts of places. Fewer places now that Yahoo took GeoCities down; but I’ve got comments on sites I forgot I posted to, and quotes from sites I don’t recognize at all. (I’m just glad people attributed my stuff properly and didn’t just plagiarize it outright.)
A fan referred recently to a “debate” I had with some atheists. I didn’t remember staging any such thing, but it wasn’t staged; it just sorta happened on the Internet Monk’s website two years ago. He was writing about the movie The Golden Compass, which I watched last year and found deathly boring. His point was that the author of the book series wrote them to promote atheism, and how he wasn’t freaked out over the idea of an atheism-supporting children’s movie in the theaters because we shouldn’t fear the atheist perspective; it’s intellectually bankrupt, and children won’t be tempted away from Jesus by it if they’ve heard Jesus properly. What’s more, atheists are quick to call us Christians on it when we don’t present Jesus properly: Because they can’t really counter true Christianity, they pick away at the false, fraudulent, or ill-practiced Christianity. They keep us honest. They’re useful in that, I suppose.
I added a comment, pointing out that atheism is largely based on a personal animosity towards God rather than an intellectual argument. And, admittedly, Christianity is the same way: It’s based on the love of God rather than an intellectual argument. Neither side is going to sway the other through logic. Especially when atheists tend to—in my experience anyway—behave like utter jerks towards theists.
Yeah, the same can be said of us Christians. But I find it’s much more true of atheists. They aren’t hampered by Jesus’s command to love your enemies, so they tend to tear into Christians like roosters in a cockfight. Occasionally you get a polite one, but that’s just because they’re better at hiding the hostility, or disguising it as a sense of humor.
So I encouraged the Internet Monk to let his kids see atheists in action. “Nothing will turn them off to the philosophy more than the lack of grace in its practitioners,” I said.
Well, you realize that if atheists were to read that statement, they wouldn’t take it lying down. And thus began the “debate,” as my correspondent called it. Which I’ve included below.
WeeMaryAnne. Pardon me, but your comment is enough to make a cat laugh. Atheists don’t have any “personal animosity towards god.” They don’t believe in any god to begin with. It’s impossible to dislike something that’s not even there.
And I think you’ll need to define what you mean by “grace” before accusing someone like, say, Daniel Dennett of lacking same.
Ray. This is a paraphrase of something wiser men than I have said, but it says something important that religious people don’t seem to understand: atheism is nothing more and nothing less than not having a belief in any gods. They hold no personal animosity for your god any more than they have a personal animosity towards invisible pink unicorns.
Christians are almost as atheistic as atheists are… atheists just happen to believe in one fewer god.
There have been tens of thousands of gods people have believed in over the course of human history, and you only believe in one of them.
If you’re interesting in having an open mind, try this experiment: list at least 5 logical reasons why you don’t believe in Thor, the Norse God of Thunder.
I’d be very surprised if an atheist would make a significantly different list for why they don’t believe in the god of the Abrahamic tradition.
Me. If it’s impossible to dislike something that’s “not even there,” why is it that any atheist’s subsequent discussion about God automatically consists of condescending ridicule?
Any atheist. Even the nice ones. None of them are willing to civilly accept the theist’s point of view simply for the sake of argument. All of them have to start bashing God and those who believe in Him, either overtly or subtly. They may not even be aware they’re doing it, but the animosity is pretty obvious, particularly to those who happen to love God. It’s exactly like you’re picking on my dad.
If it was nothing more than an intellectual affirmation, there wouldn’t be any of this hostility. But there is, so it’s there. Any theist can see it.
As for Ray’s five reasons why I don’t believe in Thor (other than in the comic books)—
- Thor hasn’t spoken to me, then later confirmed he spoke to me through an unrelated Thor-follower.
- Thor hasn’t told me something would happen before it happened, and had it come true in great detail. (And no self-fulfilling prophecy either.)
- Thor hasn’t inspired prophets to tell me anything that uniquely related to my life.
- Thor hasn’t healed my relatives of illness in a way that doctors can’t adequately explain, and only minutes after my prayers were offered to him.
- I haven’t found Thor’s teachings, when properly followed, to be eminently practical.
However, all of these things have happened to me with Jesus.
WeeMaryAnne. If I “civilly accept” your point of view, then why would we even be arguing at all? It’s not rude to point out the lack of evidence to support your assertions; there’s nothing uncivil about calling nonsense nonsense. If you don’t like to hear it, that’s your concern, not mine.
Demeus. Often times in order to point out fallacies in the concept of God, atheists have to argue to believers from the standpoint of God’s existence being true, simply because many believers cannot accept any other world view. It’s not hatred of God (which is a totally meaningless concept to an actual atheist) its simply begging the question of God’s existence in order to show logical weaknesses in a believer’s idea of God.
Me. But you see, my belief in God does not stem from a logical basis. It stems from an experiential one.
If I were to reduce my relationship with my U.S. Senator to a logical basis, then of course she doesn’t exist. Most of her policies and practices don’t trickle down to me. Those few that do can be explained away. I don’t deduce her existence logically. Why would I? Should I? …If others tell me she exists, I could choose to believe them or not, and they’ll think me either nuts or overly skeptical if I don’t. And if I ridicule them for believing in any such thing as a Senator, or tried to “enlighten” them by pointing out some logical proofs for the non-existence of my Senator… well, that’s how Christians feel when atheists tear into us.
No, it’s not rude to point out a lack of evidence. But my beef is with the condescending, ridiculing way in which this lack of evidence is presented. Usually with an attitude of, “You silly theist, you’re still living in the Dark Ages; come join us in the Enlightenment, where we believe in science and progress and moving beyond your ridiculous superstitions and blinking fear of a wrathful god.” As if I don’t believe in science and progress, or as if I believed in superstitions and a wrathful God. If that’s what an atheist thinks God is, I can understand rejecting that idea. Myself, I can’t claim to have God figured out so well.
WeeMaryAnne. Very well, you’ve experienced something you call god. That’s nice for you, but meaningless to me. If you were a small child then I might indulge your belief (temporarily), but since you’re not then it would be the height, or rather the depth, of condescension to pretend along with you for even a moment.
So you see, I do indeed make a distinction between K.W. the person, who is worthy of respect simply by virtue of being human, and K.W.’s professed beliefs, which are unsupported by any evidence or convincing argument and therefore do not merit such respect.
And just to make myself clear: I do not think that god is wrathful. I do not think that god is, period.
Finally, I’m still interested to hear your definition of the quality of grace.
Me. You forget how closely people identify with their beliefs. If beliefs aren’t considered worthy of respect, how much respect can one have for the person that holds them? One can claim to respect me but not my beliefs, but that claim rings a bit hollow when one mocks me through my beliefs. (“If you were a small child I might indulge your belief…” implies theism is only for children and the mentally deficient, as I must be to hold such ideas. You see?)
The trouble is that the people on this site don’t know me. My claims are only as valid as I am. If you don’t know how valid I am, I can understand a certain degree of skepticism. What I don’t understand is dismissal. Even with those whose posts get completely obnoxious, we must differentiate between the writer and the idea, otherwise we call that an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you knew me, saw my lifestyle, and noticed how my theism was an integral part of it, you might understand it better. But all I am right here is words on a website.
I don’t understand what is meant by “the quality of grace.” I’m just going off the usual dictionary definition of grace. I’m not in the redefinition business. (Nor am I implying anyone else is.)
WeeMaryAnne. Okay, that’s a fair point about how people identify with their beliefs; however, it doesn’t necessarily hold. This atheist generally laughs when told that atheism is an untenable position. I don’t feel personally attacked or denigrated. Whether this is mostly a difference in attitude, or whether I’m simply more confident in holding a position with evidence to support it, I can’t tell.
I do feel personally affronted when threatened with some form of punishment, either temporal or spiritual, for having the effrontery to disagree with the majority. I get that a lot and I have no patience with it. Yes, I know that’s not the position you’re taking here; I refer to it for the sake of contrast. Sorry for the digression.
The quality of grace—you accused atheist writers of being graceless. If you’ve heard Daniel Dennett speak (for example), you might wish to revise that opinion. The man is a combination of Everybody’s Favorite Teacher and Everybody’s Favorite Uncle. And in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes to his late friend, “Douglas, I miss you,” and you can actually feel a lump in your throat as he adds exactly why he misses him.
However you define grace, it must include this, no?
Ray. Re: your 5 reasons for not believing in Thor. Allow me to confirm that those 5 reasons are perfectly applicable to my non-belief in Y-VH (see, I even respect your feelings about that name).
I accept that you believe you’ve had these experiences, but allow me further indulgence:
- Have you actually heard a god’s voice in your head, and if so, how do you know his or her identity?
- I’ll accept your story for a moment, but how do you know that wasn’t Thor? And to question your story for a moment, how well do you understand the statistics of coincidence?
- Again, how do you know that? Maybe it was Y-VH, maybe it was Thor, maybe those prophets were motivated to lie for some reason, or perhaps they were just delusional and/or speaking from logical observations about the world as though they were inspired. I’m not saying any of those things are true, just curious how you know.
- I repeat my questions for #2, and add a question about the statistics of spontaneous remission of diseases.
- Do you even know the teachings of Thor? If not, certainly it’s practical not to anger the gods, and him in particular… why… you might get hit by lightning! Haven’t you heard his wrath every time a thunderstorm comes through? There are a lot of sinners out there, and almost no one believes in him any more… that’d sure annoy me if I were a god. Why, I might even be motivated to strike down dozens or even hundreds of people a year for their insolence. Of course, if I had any mercy or kindness in me at all I wouldn’t strike down millions a year even if they were all guilty… so the statistics of death by lightning seem perfectly reasonable to me. Or, at least, more reasonable than concluding Y-VH is omnipotent and infinitely merciful.
Me: Two responses—
WeeMaryAnne: Threatening atheists with hellfire is an all-too-common Christian response, and just as graceless as accusing Christians of stupidity. I’m fully aware that theists can be obnoxious. I believe when they behave that way it’s a sign they believe in God rather than know God. Those of us who know God can’t behave that way for very long without God calling us on our bad behavior.
I didn’t accuse atheist writers of being graceless; it was actually a blanket statement made about any and every atheist. Probably a bit unfair, since I can’t claim to know for certain that there is no such thing as a kind atheist. I can only believe there is no such thing, and make lots of logical arguments to prove it; and when you try to offer evidence to the contrary I can simply fall back on my original assumption: “Atheists are rude. Period.” But I don’t wish to be closed-minded about it. Possibly you’re right. It’s just that every time I see atheists debate Christians, or debate an atheist myself, their disdain comes out.
Ray: I don’t mind you spelling out YHVH. I don’t think He minds either. Again, I’m not superstitious. I’ll try to answer your questions briefly.
- Yes. His behavior and statements are consistent with the historic Christian understanding of God; and since I’m not the only one who hears Him, I can compare experiences with other Christians.
- I never took Statistics. I do know that when you get too many coincidences on top of one another, it’s no coincidence. When I or others are given information we shouldn’t know, it’s pretty convincing proof. Besides which, God doesn’t tell me stuff I want to hear; He frequently tells me stuff I don’t want to hear. He’s correcting me, you see. He’s making me behave. Thor was never much interested in morality.
- To be fair, I don’t know whether Thor inspired anyone to write anything; like you, I don’t believe in Thor, and don’t worry about him. If he were real I expect he would have pitched a fit about the Christianization of Scandinavia and fought it harder. My belief in God has to do with God’s actions, and I can’t say I’ve experienced any of Thor’s.
- I don’t believe in spontaneous remission of diseases; I believe in cause and effect. “Spontaneous remission” is another way of saying “I don’t know why this happened.” Maybe an immune system rallied; maybe a cure was effected; maybe the disease mutated into something that couldn’t spread further; I have no idea and neither do the doctors. I think it’s reasonable to believe that if a disease disappears instantly it’s due to some outside agency, and if it wasn’t the doctor or the white blood cells that leaves God. Unless one rejects a belief in God, in which case one is stuck with a blind faith in “spontaneity.”
- Thor actually taught nothing. Thorism is not a philosophical religion, but religious feudalism: “Thor is mighty. Worship Thor or Thor will strike you down,” bundled with stories of Thor’s strength. If you’re familiar with the bible, you’ll note God didn’t smite anyone unless their behavior was destroying others, and much more often than not He forgave. (It looks like there’s a lot of smiting because the 50-, 100-, and 400-year intervals between smitings aren’t so well catalogued. The bible, unfortunately, doesn’t spend a lot of time chronicling when people behaved themselves. Great literature is borne of conflict, you’ll remember.) You’ll also note that God has little to do with the weather (except to stop it, as Jesus did a few times). A lot of the misconceptions about God have to do with mixing pagan views of God with Christian ones, and like I said, I don’t believe in that god either.
They didn’t make any further comments, so I suppose that’s as far as the “debate” goes.
My correspondent was really impressed by my “tactics,” as he put it: that instead of going through the usual apologist’s smorgasbord of logical proofs for the existence of God, I did an end-run around all that and talked about my personal experiences with Him, which the atheists really couldn’t debate at all.
First of all, it was not my intention to get in an atheist-versus-Christian debate. I was making a comment. True, a provocative one, but I don’t do passive-agressive provocation. That is, if I want people to respond to something I say, I flat out ask for responses. When I wrote for newspapers, I included phone numbers; when I blog, I include my email address. If it’s someone else’s blog… well, I have no business taking over their blog to start my debate. Unless it’s with them, and even then, I don’t want a debate; I just want to ask them why they’ve come to the conclusion they have, or point out that they’re wrong, and if it turns into a debate, that’s sorta on them. I have better things to do than to go back to someone else’s blog on a regular basis, and see how someone responded to my comment, and compose answers. I already get plenty of email like that.
It became a debate only because the atheists decided to make typical atheist statements. They make the same mistake Christian apologists do: They try to argue from logic.
Now, humans aren”t logical. I say this all the time. We don’t make decisions based on logic; we make them based on emotion, and ex post facto justify the emotional decision with logic. I don’t believe in Jesus because I examined every human religion and concluded that Christianity was the most logically consistent; I believe in Jesus because my mom introduced me to Him when I was four years old. The person who comes to Christ through logical deduction is extremely rare. We certainly don’t see any such people in the bible.
Yet somehow apologists have convinced us that the way to defend Jesus and Christianity is through logic. Why? Well, because they’re making the inaccurate assumption that people will be receptive to logic. Unbelievers regularly claim that their nonbelief is entirely the result of logic. Apologists have taken them at their word. They shouldn’t have. The atheists were lying. Logically concluding there’s no God sounds much more noble than being pissed at Christians behaving badly, and therefore concluding our religion is a sham. There are some honest atheists who admit their search for logic came as the result of Christians behaving badly; but it’s true in every case: The logic always came second. The annoyance at God, or Christians, or any sort of theism, always came first. Then the logic necessary to dismiss God. Then, since there was no God to begin with, any animosity towards God must not have ever been real, because God wasn’t real. See how easy denial can be once you apply logic to it?
Apologists claim we have to learn logical arguments because everyone will respect logic. That’s ridiculous. No one, except certain mathematicians and scientists, respects logic in and of itself. People will only respect logic if it leads to a conclusion that they already embrace. Otherwise they’ll think there’s a flaw someplace, and will search like mad to find that flaw. And that’s why logic doesn’t work in apologetics: Humans aren’t logical.
If you don’t have logic, what then do you have? Emotion, of course; but while everyone follows their own emotions (or “trusts their instinct,” “follows their gut,” “knows it in their knower,” “feels it in their bones”) they’re not gonna follow mine unless they know me well enough to trust me, or are willing to “follow their heart”—again with the emotion—and trust me despite not knowing me. That’s not gonna happen. I have no chance at talking them into Christianity, much less out of atheism. I have no solid relationship to start from. I have, actually, a damaged one; I am pro-God, they are anti-God, and I’ve already insulted them by stating a reality that they much prefer to deny.
So we can’t debate. So I didn’t try.
What you see in my responses are not “tactics,” because I had no goal to convert any of these folks. I expressed my personal, subjective opinion. I didn’t switch to an objective opinion and fight ’em with logic, because that’s an apologetics tactic, and won’t work anyway.
Instead, I stuck to what I know. I stuck to personal experiences. True, they can’t verify my experiences; they have to take or leave them. But they were gonna do that anyway if I tried to use logic. And logic answers are ultimately weak, flabby answers. There’s no relationship with God in them. Consequently there’s very little love, which is why most apologists tend to turn into the very sort of condescending a--holes that I was complaining the atheists are.
I recommended to my correspondent—and I recommend to everyone—that we not debate atheists. There’s no point. You want them to turn to Jesus, you need to be Jesus to them, and convince them by clearly demonstrating His presence in your life. If they see Jesus in you they really can’t deny Him. But if all you have for them is logic, they can bat that away like a cat smacking string.