Evidence for God from Science

So I've come to a conclusion about atheism. While on one hand, I certainly believe we should provide rational apologetics--we all do that on a pretty regular basis--and hope that these arguments will be enough to show people why God makes the most sense, I believe it is also incumbent upon us to take atheism's moral conclusions into account as well. In other words, while I think we must respond to the rational inquiries of atheism, I think we must also respond to their emotional inquiries as well.

To that extent, I see a positive and a negative side, much like the rest of apologetics (offensive and defensive). On the positive side, we can point out the moral bankruptcy and absolute desperation of atheism. Both the moral argument and the existential argument do that. Yet on the negative side, I think it is high time for theists to express moral indignation. That is, beyond pointing to the moral deficiency of atheism, we must point out the moral inferiority as well. In short, the argument of the New Atheists should be turned exactly against them. Religion poisons everything? God is an intolerant bigot? On the contrary! Atheism poisons everything, and atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry.

Think back to the Civil Right's arguments. Did we win that fight by calmly discussing the philosophical and theological implications of slavery only? No. We certainly had those discussions, but more importantly, we stood up and declared what all men already knew: that ALL men are created equal, and as such, ALL men have the right to freedom, and that NO man has the right to own another. Discrimination, we found, is a morally abominable position. Our righteousness indignation was buttressed by reality, philosophy, and theology, for sure. But reality, philosophy, and theology only came alive when tied to the fact that what was happening before us was an abomination in the eyes of God. In short, we started to care.

I am all in favor of dispassionate, rational analysis of atheistic and theistic arguments. But I have come to conclude that we must go on the offensive and declare atheism for what it is: the moral degradation of man. Atheism and its humanism have resulted in the Gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia, the rapid spread of AIDS in Africa, in Chairman Mao's cultural revolution and its 30 million dead. The list goes on and on.

Rational doesn't mean amoral. Moral doesn't mean tolerant. Intolerant doesn't mean bigotry or disrespect. If atheists have their "New Atheism," perhaps we need the "New Theism"?

Thoughts?

Jac3510 wrote:I think we must respond to the rational inquiries of atheism, I think we must also respond to their emotional inquiries as well.

Speaking as a former atheist myself, I do not believe that most atheists have «rational inquiries» about Christianity. What is usually expressed is veiled hatred of God (capital G God); in other words, what is presented as a rational inquiry is actually an emotional attack. (...and the use of the form «god/gods» by atheists is often an attempt at obfuscating their interlocutor. If truth be told, atheists don't give a hoot about Hinduism or Buddhism or even Islam. Christianity is the target. Judaism is also a target, to a lesser extent.)

Jac3510 wrote: In short, the argument of the New Atheists should be turned exactly against them.

We will first have to convince them to listen to us and intelligently consider what we have to say. That's a very steep, uphill grade, Jac.

Apart from the above, I agree with you 100%

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I think we must respond to the rational inquiries of atheism, I think we must also respond to their emotional inquiries as well.

Speaking as a former atheist myself, I do not believe that most atheists have «rational inquiries» about Christianity. What is usually expressed is veiled hatred of God (capital G God; in other words, what is presented as a rational inquiry is actually an emotional attack. (...and the use of the form «god/gods» by atheists is often an attempt at obfuscating their interlocutor. If truth be told, atheists don't give a hoot about Hinduism or Buddhism or even Islam. Christianity is the target. Judaism is also a target, to a lesser extent.)

FL

This post right here is bang on target. My feelings expressed perfectly. That's it. Jac, great post. I look forward to seeing where this one goes.

Jac3510 wrote:Atheism poisons everything, and atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry.

In what sense do you think this is true? For example, given that I'm an atheist, is it necessary that I'm also an intolerant bigot? I hope you don't espouse such a radical view. Perhaps you only mean that intolerance and bigotry are over-represented in atheist circles when compared to theists. But then how can you support such a view? Personally, I suspect the opposite is true.

Think back to the Civil Right's arguments. Did we win that fight by calmly discussing the philosophical and theological implications of slavery only? No. We certainly had those discussions, but more importantly, we stood up and declared what all men already knew: that ALL men are created equal, and as such, ALL men have the right to freedom, and that NO man has the right to own another.

The problem with this analogy is that the existence of God is a matter of factual inquiry, whereas slavery was a social concern. In other words, men weren't, as you suggest, declaring knowledge, but rather moral and political positions, which are not matters of fact at all.

That said, emotional appeals can be quite effective even in factual arguments. So, if indeed atheism is "morally bankrupt," as you contend, then it's probably a good idea from an evangelical perspective for you to point that out. However, you'll need some very good luck getting atheists to agree to any such thing, except perhaps for the sake of argument.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I think we must respond to the rational inquiries of atheism, I think we must also respond to their emotional inquiries as well.

Speaking as a former atheist myself, I do not believe that most atheists have «rational inquiries» about Christianity. What is usually expressed is veiled hatred of God (capital G God); in other words, what is presented as a rational inquiry is actually an emotional attack. (...and the use of the form «god/gods» by atheists is often an attempt at obfuscating their interlocutor. If truth be told, atheists don't give a hoot about Hinduism or Buddhism or even Islam. Christianity is the target. Judaism is also a target, to a lesser extent.)

In sales, you are taught to look at objections as requests for more information (viz., inquiries). Thus, my usage of the term "emotional inquiries." What I am saying is, like you point out here, a great number of atheists have emotional objections to God. I have found that a great many of the rational objections you get are actually just a smoke screen to veil those emotional problems, and so you have Christopher Hitchens making the startling admission that he doesn't believe in God and he hates him.

Jac3510 wrote:We will first have to convince them to listen to us and intelligently consider what we have to say. That's a very steep, uphill grade, Jac.

Apart from the above, I agree with you 100%

FL

I don't know that we have to do that FIRST. Again, in sales, one of the first things you are taught to do is disturb the client. Suppose you own a car that you are perfectly happy with. Why should you pay any attention to any given car ad? A good commercial, or salesman, or what have you, will guide you to the realization that what you have doesn't fit your needs. You may like it quite a bit, but you know, it doesn't have those cup holders, and you DO get a coffee every morning. A small problem, sure, but when it causes you to spill the coffee on yourself . . . and let's not forget that the backseat of your beautiful car (and beautiful it is! No one would deny that!) only comfortably seats two, and yet, you have a child that needs a carseat. It is a little cramped for that. Perhaps something a bit more family friendly, though every bit as pretty, would be a good selection.

The thought is now in your mind, and the next time you go to the coffee shop with your son in the backseat, you realize just how impractical your car really is, and lo and behold, you are suddenly finding yourself paying attention to car commercials!

The point is that people usually have to see an emotional need for something before they are willing to consider it. I am afraid that we apologists, much like the rest of the evangelistic world, are so afraid of offending people that we have created a politically correct, non-invasive set of answers that leaves the non-believer feeling like he is engaging in an interesting, and perhaps even enjoyable, philosophical debate with no REAL ramifications. After all, whether he believes or disbelieves, he can be every bit as good and happy as any Christian. Surely you know that is one of Hitchens' chief arguments! Show me, he says, one good thing a believer can do that an unbeliever cannot; against that, he will show you an evil thing a believer can do that an unbeliever cannot (that is, murder in the name of God).

Returning to the example of civil rights and slavery, it was the emotional appeal that so clearly hooked people. Yet more, it wasn't only emotional, for they very soon found that under those emotional appeals were rock solid arguments that could not be refuted. And should it be any other way? Do emotions not come from God? Should we not expect Him to be passionate about His creation? Did He not exclaim, after all, that it was "very good"?

The sooner we learn to personalize this debate the better. We must learn to couch our rational arguments in human and even emotional language, because humans are emotional people. We are not dealing with computers that need reprogramming. We are dealing with people who need to SEE the depravity and the desperation of their position. How can a man turn to God to be saved from his sin if he sees his sin as something he doesn't need to be saved from?

hatsoff wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Atheism poisons everything, and atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry.

In what sense do you think this is true? For example, given that I'm an atheist, is it necessary that I'm also an intolerant bigot? I hope you don't espouse such a radical view. Perhaps you only mean that intolerance and bigotry are over-represented in atheist circles when compared to theists. But then how can you support such a view? Personally, I suspect the opposite is true.

Neither, actually. I mean that atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry. Whether you choose to be philosophically consistent is up to you.

Please note, by the way, that when I speak of atheism, I am referring primarily to that type of atheism that is bound up with humanism and secularism--"moral atheism," if you will. That is, those people, like Hitchens, who believe that you can be an atheist and still hold that human beings are obligated to be good to one another--that we "ought" to do something (whatever that "something" is). Unfortunately for atheists, I find that ALL of you are in this camp. I no of absolutely no one who lives as if there are no "oughts" of any kind. You live as if human beings have some sort of responsibilities. The terrifying part is what happens when you try to ground those "oughts" in an atheistic metaphysic. It leads, as I said, necessarily, to intolerance and bigotry of the worst kind.

The problem with this analogy is that the existence of God is a matter of factual inquiry, whereas slavery was a social concern. In other words, men weren't, as you suggest, declaring knowledge, but rather moral and political positions, which are not matters of fact at all.

If atheism is true, yes. But you are making an assumption--an atheistic assumption--about the nature of morality. I would argue that slavery was not merely a social concern, but it was a social concern because it violated a factual reality, namely, that no man has the right to enslave another. You are ASSUMING that morality is strictly internal and not a matter of fact. But if it is a matter of fact, then slavery, like God's existence, is most certainly a matter of factual inquiry.

That said, emotional appeals can be quite effective even in factual arguments. So, if indeed atheism is "morally bankrupt," as you contend, then it's probably a good idea from an evangelical perspective for you to point that out. However, you'll need some very good luck getting atheists to agree to any such thing, except perhaps for the sake of argument.

Getting people to agree for the sake of argument is a good start. In the meantime, I am more concerned with the untold millions of people who have bought into the idea that atheism is morally neutral. It isn't. It is absolutely dangerous is the most lethal sense of the word, and leading, as it must, to Statism, it is dangerous in the political and legal sense of the word as well, since it will ultimately force us to abandon the foundations of the Constitution and declare that no man has any inalienable rights, but rather, only those rights granted to him by the state. It thus leads to tyranny. Dangerous.

Jac,

I think there is a time and a place for everything....there are times to debate civilly, a time to go on the offensive, and a time to shake the dirt off of your sandals.

I just hope that we always have the wisdom to know the difference.

At what point are you strengthening their wall against Christ? ("see, what bull-headed Christians they are")

At what point are you turning them away? Even Paul tried to establish talking points....

Note I am not saying there is never a time for this...on the internet it's even harder to establish this point. I would think we should aways go one step further than one step too early.

Jac3510 wrote: But I have come to conclude that we must go on the offensive and declare atheism for what it is: the moral degradation of man. Atheism and its humanism have resulted in the Gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia, the rapid spread of AIDS in Africa, in Chairman Mao's cultural revolution and its 30 million dead. The list goes on and on.

I will whole heartily agree with you Jac.. We just need to be crafty about our tactics and not go on witch hunts. Attack principles and not people. Ephesians 6:12

Jac3510 wrote:I mean that atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry.

Any chance you could clarify that?

Jac,

I got your salesman analogy...thanks. You make a lot of sense. I'll have to think this over.

FL

Jac3510 wrote:Neither, actually. I mean that atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry. Whether you choose to be philosophically consistent is up to you.

But you have not answered my question: In what sense does atheism necessarily lead to intolerance and bigotry? Are you suggesting that tolerance and non-bigotry are philosophically inconsistent with atheism? If so, then please feel free to explain how.

It is absolutely dangerous is the most lethal sense of the word, and leading, as it must, to Statism, it is dangerous in the political and legal sense of the word as well, since it will ultimately force us to abandon the foundations of the Constitution and declare that no man has any inalienable rights, but rather, only those rights granted to him by the state. It thus leads to tyranny. Dangerous.

I can think of no sense in which it would be appropriate to say that atheism "must" lead to statism. Please feel free to explain that as well.

touchingcloth wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I mean that atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry.

Any chance you could clarify that?

We can go through the philosophical debates later. In the meantime, perhaps pointing out that Nietzsche pretty well predicted the entire 20th century's unprecedented bloodshed, thanks to no less than atheism, is sufficient. I'd recommend this brief article, How Nietzsche Predicted the Future, for introductory reading.

hatsoff wrote:But you have not answered my question: In what sense does atheism necessarily lead to intolerance and bigotry? Are you suggesting that tolerance and non-bigotry are philosophically inconsistent with atheism? If so, then please feel free to explain how.

As noted to TC above, we can discuss how that plays out soon enough. But before we begin waxing eloquent, I want to point out this is a matter of history. The question is not, "Does atheism necessarily lead to intolerance and bigotry," but "Why has atheism invariably led to intolerance and bigotry?"

In any case, yes, I am suggesting that tolerance and non-bigotry are philosophically inconsistent with atheism.

I can think of no sense in which it would be appropriate to say that atheism "must" lead to statism. Please feel free to explain that as well.

I am going to quote a famous bit of prose, and I want you to tell me if it is true or false. Before you do, please note the previous article and Nietzsche's own predictions:

• When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
  
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .

So, do you agree with the writers of these statements or not? Specifically, do you agree with these assertions of these authors, that

1. Nature's god entitled men to separate but equal stations;
2. That all men are created equal;
3. That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;
4. That Governments are instituted for the purpose of securing these rights?

In short, do you agree or disagree with these authors that God, not people, is the source of our rights, and therefore, those rights are inalienable? Or, on the hand, are rights granted by people, and therefore not inalienable?

Again, remember Nietzsche as you answer these questions, and that will provide a basis for answering your question to me here.

Jac3510 wrote:In any case, yes, I am suggesting that tolerance and non-bigotry are philosophically inconsistent with atheism.

Your advice to your fellow Christians then hangs on this not being a mistake on your part. If you can demonstrate an inconsistency, be my guest.

So, do you agree with the writers of these statements or not? Specifically, do you agree with these assertions of these authors, that

1. Nature's god entitled men to separate but equal stations;
2. That all men are created equal;
3. That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;
4. That Governments are instituted for the purpose of securing these rights?

I disagree with (1) through (3), but I agree, with qualifications of course, with (4).

In short, do you agree or disagree with these authors that God, not people, is the source of our rights, and therefore, those rights are inalienable? Or, on the hand, are rights granted by people, and therefore not inalienable?

I don't see how the existence of God makes rights inalienable. Rights are able to be taken away whether or not God exists.

I also don't see what Nietzsche has to do with this.

Your advice to your fellow Christians then hangs on this not being a mistake on your part. If you can demonstrate an inconsistency, be my guest.

No, there are just two positions. There is a strong position, which I advocate, that says that they are inconsistent. Yet you can still argue that atheism, at bare minimum, tends to lead to that, which would be more along the lines of a Hitchens type argument.

Don't let advocacy for the former confuse the issues for you.

I disagree with (1) through (3), but I agree, with qualifications of course, with (4).

Then you disagree with the entire basis on which America was founded. Unfortunately for you, history shows that the basis on which we actually WERE founded, which you have stated your disagreement with, has lead to the creation of the freest, most prosperous, most virtuous people in the history of mankind. Have we, as a nation, made mistakes? Of course, but there can be little doubt that America has been a force for good in the world. Perhaps America should have been based on a more European styled Enlightenment set of principles? Well, that was tried, and it resulted in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror.

As for your qualification of the fourth, there can be no qualification. It assumes that rights are prior to the state and that the purpose of the state is to protect that preexisting rights. If the state does not grant those rights, who or what does? And if the state does grant those rights, then it cannot exist for the purpose of defending them. If government is the source of rights (which is a deeply immoral proposition), then it obviously cannot be instituted for the purpose of defending them. It would be instituted for the purpose of granting them.

I don't see how the existence of God makes rights inalienable. Rights are able to be taken away whether or not God exists.

If God grants them, they cannot be separated from what it means to be a man, and thus, they are inalienable. In a theistic worldview, these rights cannot be taken away. They can be VIOLATED, which only points to the immorality of such violation, but they cannot be taken away.

In atheism, such rights CAN be taken away, meaning that such rights are not inherent to the human being, meaning that human beings are not inherently worth anything. They are ASSIGNED value, which is a morally abominable statement that justifies the worst of human cruelty. After all, whose assigned value should be accepted? Mao Tse-Tsung argued that justice is decided by the one standing on the right side of the gun. You may believe that the Gulags, the Terror, the mass murders and inflicted famines of the Chinese Revolution, the gas chambers, and Cambodia's killing fields were wrong . . . you may disagree with Mao . . . but your disagreement is nothing more than a personal opinion, on par with your preference for ice cream. You have no rational basis on which to say you are correct and those men were wrong. No, they were actually being consistent with their worldviews.

Such can't happen a theistic worldview. Certainly, theists can do evil things and kill and maim and torture, but in so doing, they are being inconsistent with their worldview. The same can't be said about Stalin. He may not have murdered in the name of atheism, but he did murder in the name of the State, which was expressly founded upon atheistic propositions. His murders may not have been directly caused by his atheism, but his atheism encouraged and most certainly did not restrain them.

I also don't see what Nietzsche has to do with this.

Then I assume you didn't read the linked article. He predicted all this. HO, this is not a merely academic discussion. This is a matter of historical record. History is the laboratory of philosophical ideas. Your ideas have been tried, and they have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred million people, not including the ongoing infanticide we prefer to call abortion. You need to take seriously the fact that I'm not saying that atheism will, in the future, lead to these things. I am saying that it already has, and that it was predicted that it would do so by someone--an atheist himself--who saw its necessary consequences.

If you don't think, then, that atheism necessarily leads to these things, your quarrel with with Nietzsche.

Jac3510 wrote:No, there are just two positions. There is a strong position, which I advocate, that says that they are inconsistent. Yet you can still argue that atheism, at bare minimum, tends to lead to that, which would be more along the lines of a Hitchens type argument.

Don't let advocacy for the former confuse the issues for you.

Well that's what I've been asking you about, so I interpreted you as answering my questions. Perhaps you could do so now.

Anyway, if atheism is a difficult issue, such that it "tends" to lead people into philosophical inconsistencies, how is that an argument against consistent forms of atheism?

Then you disagree with the entire basis on which America was founded. Unfortunately for you, history shows that the basis on which we actually WERE founded, which you have stated your disagreement with, has lead to the creation of the freest, most prosperous, most virtuous people in the history of mankind.

How is that unfortunate for me?

If the state does not grant those rights, who or what does?

People, and groups of people. States can grant rights, too, of course, but not to the exclusion of other entities.

God, if he exists, can also grant rights. And he can take them away just as easily.

History is the laboratory of philosophical ideas. Your ideas have been tried, and they have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred million people, not including the ongoing infanticide we prefer to call abortion.

Ridiculous. I don't profess to have any ideas about how governments should be run, except to say that it seems like democracy and capitalism both work fairly well in the United States. I'm only assessing the evidence for the existence of God, which I find terribly lacking.