A while ago I received a Twitter friend request from a blog called CultureFeast. I added them back, but didn’t really follow much of what they Twittered about. However, a blog link published this week caught my eye: Defend Your Faith.The article is a rather mediocre rant about an unnamed (perhaps nonexistent?) atheist website that was posting some inflamatory statements about Christianity. There wasn’t a lot of meat in the article, but I responded because I was feeling short changed by the author, who seemed to regard all atheists as The Village Atheist.
I posted a response that I thought detailed the difference between mainstream, thoughtful atheism, and the vocal minority of brash, offensive atheists.
(I personally think that many of these brash, offensive atheists have some fantastic points and brilliant minds — but perhaps their people skills could be better. I’m looking at you, Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens.)
Anyhow, what followed was a debate, still in progress between myself and a CultureFeast writer, Daniel. I’m linking the discussion because I think it’s an interesting example of the impasse that theists and atheists encounter when discussing the concept of “beginnings.”
Comments on “Defend Your Faith” by Michael Callaway.
There are a lot of interesting points that have surfaced in this debate, and some will be spun into full blown posts in the coming days. Read this if you’re looking for some pre-reading.
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 14, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Michael Callaway
I was glad to see your responses on Defend Your Faith it made the debate lively. I must say I have read them and have not seen a lot of meat in regards to the question about the atheist being a person of faith. I am responding because I feel short changed and fear that you regard all Christians as “The Village Christian” that wants to control all behavior.
I hope that my posts will detail the difference between mainstream, thoughtful Christianity, and the vocal minority of brash, offensive Christians.
(I personally think that many of these brash, offensive Christians have some fantastic points and brilliant minds – but wish their people skills could be better.)
I will expect more from you in answering why an atheist is not a person of faith as I have stated then the mediocre rants of the angry atheist website (yes it does exist) that will post an outrageous comment but will not post mine.
August 19, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Jolly Sapper
If I don’t have a fifty dollar bill in my pocket, I don’t have to have faith about it. Its not there. So until you can convince me, who didn’t put on my “fifty dollar bill in my pocket” pants, that I have fifty dollars in my pocket. I’m going to believe that I don’t have a fifty dollar bill in my pocket.
Rinse, lather, repeat…
August 20, 2008 at 7:42 am
Michael Callaway
That is true, you would have evidence that it is not there because you have looked in your pocket. Tell me, have you looked all around the Universe? Can you tell me that you have verified that there is no God just like you verified that there is not $50 in your pocket?
August 20, 2008 at 11:25 am
Jolly Sapper
How exactly does one prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis?
If I were to ask you to prove the existence, of a human being that was alive (and not some made up construct) by the name of Joe Rosalyn Supergooberwasabi, how long would you look without finding any existence of this person before determining that this person didn’t exist?
The problem with any example or thought experiment that I try to use, is that I’m bound to use something that exists to try to prove my point. You don’t suffer from that limitation.
August 23, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Michael Callaway
Let me ask a question if I may. What type of evidence would you need to believe in a God?
August 23, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Derek
Good question.
As Jolly Sapper has already alluded to, the best evidence is falsifiable evidence.
In the case of a God hypothesis, falsifiable evidence would include (but is not limited to):
- Consistent, reproducible “miracles.” A la the feats of Jesus in the Bible. And I’m talking straight up water-into-wine, not an image of Jesus appearing on a dog’s butt.
- A visible, touchable, measurable presence that identified itself as God. This doesn’t mean a warm fuzzy feeling when you sit in church, but actually a person, teapot or flying spaghetti monster.
- Widespread scientific consensus that this mathematical theorum, or that physics model proves the existence of God.
The list can go on, of course, but all items will have something in common… They haven’t been produced by theists.
You might also note that these are not necessarily conclusive proofs… But they would certainly increase the probability that God exists.
Remember, there’s nothing at stake for the atheist when it comes to believing in God. If the evidence suggested that it was highly probable God existed, atheists would have nothing to lose by “repenting.”
August 23, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Michael Callaway
Now I would have to disagree with there is nothing at stake, not that you will be sent to hell for not believing in the right god which is a whole other point for later. But, if God is real, and you have gone through your whole life saying that He is not, that could be a problem.
Another question that I would then ask is if there is no evidence of a God, why does the majority of the world belive in one? Even both candidates for President of the United States of America believe in God. If it was so obviously wrong, would not more people agree with your conclusion?
Btw, I use the “He” not because God is male but because historically that is how we have done that. Just like I do not believe a ship is female but we historically call them a she.
August 23, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Derek
I meant that there is no reason that atheists should continue to argue that God doesn’t exist in the face of evidence that he does. In the case of God existing, and atheists getting in some posthumous hot water, I point you to Bertrand Russel’s response. When asked what he would say if he died and met God at the pearly gates, he replied, “Not enough evidence God… Not enough evidence.”
There are many, many theories for why religion is such a widespread phenomenon. Being an extremely liberally minded Canadian, I can’t say I’m much impressed with America’s presidential history, so the theological beliefs of her candidates aren’t much of an argument.
Some of the current theories for widespread faith:
1. Evolutionary (Group Selection): Groups that had evolved a God belief, were naturally selected over groups that had not. Richard Dawkins’ “bellicose God” example is a good one: Tribe A that had a belligerent war-God fought harder and stronger than Tribes B and C, because they had a stronger incentive (pleasing their war-God). Therefore, genetics that favoured “faith” won out over those that didn’t.
2. Evolutionary (By-Product): This is the idea that religious belief wasn’t evolved specifically because it was valuable, but occured because it was a by-product of another trait that was valuable. For example, the capacity and compulsion to believe in God could be related to the capacity for abstract thought. Since abstract thought was clearly beneficial, religious thought tagged along.
3. Sociological: Religion is a useful tool, and has historically been used by ruling classes to subjugate the lower class, and to justify such arrangements.
Personally? I think it could be a combination of these theories, or perhaps another one all together.
I don’t deny that many people believe in God, but I do argue that it’s not a very compelling argument.
People used to believe, across the board, that the world was flat. Turns out they were wrong, and it didn’t matter that everyone agreed on the fact previous to the evidence.
Want a more recent example? It was only a few hundred years ago that slavery was a reality — one that everybody seemed to think was natural and right.
The fact that everybody believes something may indicate a genetic or evolutionary tendency, but doesn’t necessarily indicate truth.
August 25, 2008 at 11:23 am
Jolly Sapper
Quoted from above: “Another question that I would then ask is if there is no evidence of a God, why does the majority of the world belive in one? Even both candidates for President of the United States of America believe in God.”
I could ask you the same question about Bigfoot, brownies, pixies, faries, unicorns, dragons, witches, Grendel, werewolves, vampires, etc. There’s no proof that any of these exist and yet lots of stories exist about them. Do you believe in the above mentioned mythical creatures as well? It seems to me that the same logic that you use to support your belief in your God should also have you believing in every imaginary creature as well. I don’t really think you do but your argument is made in such a way.
Beliefs in one version or another of god being found all over the world seems to go against the idea that ANYBODY is actually worshipping the correct deity. If I’m to believe the King James version of the Bible, there are no other gods, there never have been other gods, and there never will be other gods. So in essence, anybody who believes in and worships another deity is no better than an atheist by the Bible, right? Everybody else is worshipping something that isn’t there, regardless of what they believe and what rationalizations they may have for their non Christian beliefs.
Quote from above: “If it was so obviously wrong, would not more people agree with your conclusion?”
Right and wrong tend to be opinions more times than not. What’s right for me can be wrong for you (or any other combination.) When talking about the beliefs of individual human beings compared with other human beings, things get even more complicated. Deism isn’t the same as Christianity, Protestants don’t believe in the same definition of god as Catholics, etc. So this makes me think that if there were really some entity that was correctly defined by any human religion, it would have more power to correct the wrong notions of every other religion or human being. Unless all gods in every religion/faith are in fact real, which would invalidate monotheism by definition.
August 26, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Michael Callaway
While I appreciate your definition of faith let us go to Mr. Webster’s himself, one of the definitions is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”. You as an atheist have a firm belief that there is no God even though you have no proof. You have your rationalization as why there is no God but you have no proof just like the theist can not offer you proof that there is a God.
The definition of an atheist is defined as “one who believes that there is no deity” where as it defines an agnostic as “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable, broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.”
So when I paid Derek the high complement of being an agnostic which to me makes much more sense given your views then being an atheist he choose not to accept that label. If I were to take your approach to this debate I would insist on my definition and continue to label him as an agnostic since that is what I believe him and you to be. You claim that you are atheist so I let it go.
Jolly was kind enough to point out that my argument is not about being a Christian and he is right. While there are many people who do not realize that there is a deference between being a Deist and being a Christian or that polytheism is not the same as monotheism fear not my agnostic Jolly who is pretending to be an atheist, I am not one of them.
At this point I see no reason to make the claim that Christianity is better when you do not acknowledge that there is any God at all. Someday when you are promoted to a Deist or polytheist I would be glad to have that debate, right now I am trying to make one point and one point only, you as atheist (or agnostics pretending to be atheist) live on faith just like a theist. You have a firm belief in something with no proof, if you can acknowledge that fact then I would be more then happy to move on to the bigger questions.
Definitions found at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
September 6, 2008 at 7:13 am
Anna
I have lived in various parts of America for twenty years, and have never met any of you, so how do I know that you all exist? How do I know that derek and jolly and micheal aren’t all the same person?
even if you could study the whole universe, heaven may not be inside it. or heaven could be inside it but millions of miles away. anyway, it’s unlikely that you could reach heaven,where God lives without dying so I gues you are stuck.
Here is one other aspect though. Jesus may have lived 2,000 years ago. how do you know the existance of all the people who died before you were born? how do you know that Charles dickens, George washinton, hitler and ghengis khan all lived. maybe they didn’t. maybe life started when you were born. then how did you get here? what caused you to be born? how do you know you were born?