Atheism
Window on the World
Philip Ryken
You may not realize this, but there is an embattled group of religious believers in this country that is badly in need of protection from public hostility. Fortunately, help is on the way. Bestselling books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are providing encouragement, support, and supposedly rational argumentation to help lonely atheists who are feeling isolated in the dominant Christian culture of America and the West. Another morale booster is coming this month with the release of a new book by Christopher Hitchens: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything .
Several new things seem to be happening at once. To begin with, the success of these books has put atheism on the public agenda. The main religious viewpoints in America are still Christianity, deism, and agnosticism (not necessarily in that order); but now out-and-out atheism is part of the discussion. The new atheists are hoping that more and more of their fellow atheists will come out of the closet and say that they do not believe in God.
The new atheists seem to be angrier than ever. They write with the kind of utter disdain for people of faith that we have rarely seen since the time of Voltaire. Sam Harris says his goal is “to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity” [see Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006)]. If you are stupid enough to believe in God, Richard Dawkins wants you to know that he is “dumbstruck by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God”—a God he describes as “a psychotic delinquent” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)]. These are men who believe that Christianity is not simply wrong, but also evil.
Also new is the zeal these men have to convert people to their cause. We are witnessing a kind of missionary atheism that is not content simply to ignore religion, but wants to eliminate it. Britain’s National Secular Society even offers converts from Christianity a certificate of “de-baptism” as a way of making their atheism official [Andrew Higgins, “As Religious Strife Grows, Europe’s Atheists Seize Pulpit,” Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2007), A1].
Ironically, these strident, militant atheists often come across like the very people they want to criticize. They themselves are believers, for they firmly believe—without any scientific proof—that there is no God. Furthermore, they read the Bible with such rigid literalism that they sound like fundamentalists, doing forcible violence to the biblical text. At times it seems like they wouldn’t know a poetic metaphor if it came up and slapped them in the face (I speak metaphorically, of course). In effect, they are also evangelists, for they are actively proselytizing people to turn away from Christ. They themselves are openly intolerant of Christianity, even though this is one of their major criticisms of Christian believers. And all the while they are advocating the atheism of the 20th century tyrants who put more people to death, and more brutally, than any other worldview in history.
How should Christians respond to resurgent atheism? To begin with, we should recognize that this is the direction our culture is going. We are facing many other spiritual challenges, of course, from many different religions, but more and more Americans will simply decide that there is no God. Far from being embattled, as these writers try to claim, missionary atheism is getting emboldened.
If there is anything good about this, it could be the way that it helps to clarify the spiritual issues. It is mortally dangerous to be an atheist, but at least when people say that they don’t believe, they are clear about what they do not believe. If anything, it is more dangerous not to think about what you believe at all, or even worse, to think that you are a believer without ever putting your faith in the one true God.
Bible-believing Christians have little to fear from the new atheists, for their diatribes do very little to advance the age-old argument between Christianity and atheism. In fact, Dawkins and Harris have received brutal reviews from secular critics for completely failing to make any real attempt to understand Christianity. Their description of the Christian religion is such a caricature that even Christians would be morally obliged not to believe in the God in whom they say we believe. However much these men know about science, they know very little theology and give no evidence of having read any of the great theologians who have given serious answers to their age-old questions and objections. This is not surprising, for the Bible says it is the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (see Ps. 53:1).
The way to be wise is to believe in the God of the Bible and to live faithfully for Christ. Dawkins, Harris, and other atheists love to attack Christians by rehearsing all the terrible things that have been done in the name of Christ. Admittedly, there is plenty for them to criticize, from the Crusades of Europe to Apartheid in South Africa.
It is tempting to respond by saying that the people who committed these sins were never really Christians to begin with. But maybe it would be better to say that we also believe in the depravity of Christianity. Our claim is not that we are any better than anyone else, but rather that we need as much forgiveness as anyone. We also believe that there is forgiveness for us in Jesus, who died for all the wrong things that Christians have ever done.
Now we need to live like we believe it, with such sacrificial service to others that whatever else the atheists may say, they will never be able to claim that we do not know how to love. To paraphrase the apostle Peter: “Keep your conduct among the atheists honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:12).
Next up- criticizing people without saying why they are wrong. Let me count the ways.
Atheists are angry- Irrelevant and false. Basic ad hominum attack.
utter disdain for people of faith- lack of grasp of reality: by definition faith is the willful denial of evidence. Since evidence is pieces of information about reality, then the faithful are willfully denying reality.
zeal- evangelical: I can’t defend this. I mean, imagine the nerve of people to use their first amendment rights and try to change people’s minds!
None of them firmly believe there is no God. It is amazing that if you actually read there books they claim that there is no reason believe in God.
They read the bible literally: as opposed to tarot cards? Mysticism? Ignoring the bad parts? The killing is a show of love? Have you actually read the parts of the good book that are red with the blood of infidels or do you have no idea what they are talking about?
They do know poetry (here is a hint- read Dawkin’s eulogy).
What is next? The civil rights workers were intolerant of whites? Sufferagists were intolerant of men? We must show intolerance to injustice and all things that are intolerable.
It is the perogative of the tolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. It may seem to be a contradiction, but it isn’t- tolerance is conditional on not threatening to destroy civil society. Cross that line and we can reject you.
“Stalin, and Mao were atheists who insisted that people obey them unquestioningly and killed people. To avoid that we will obey the bible unquestioningly.”
Seriously did you read the arguement where the countered that claim? Hint- you can’t kill in the name of atheism.
I happen to have read theology and their answer to it. The “theology responce” is known as the “courtier reply”. Also known as “only once you understand fashion can you aver the emperor has no clothes”.
There is more, but the depth of error in your piece in unbelieveable. If you read the books and point out errors, power to you. However attacking something you haven’t read and obviously don’t understand makes you look like an idiot.
PS thank you for having an open post- it is really useful.
Ironically, these strident, militant atheists often come across like the very people they want to criticize. They themselves are believers, for they firmly believe—without any scientific proof—that there is no God.
But according to you there doesn’t need to be any scientific proof of god, god given faith makes it “real”. In fact searching for physical proof could indicate a certain lack of faith when it it the only thing to be relied on. Further it is not up to non christians to prove a negative. Based on logic we’re talking about a scientific method. Logic, not faith.
Furthermore, they read the Bible with such rigid literalism that they sound like fundamentalists, doing forcible violence to the biblical text.
Somewhat agreed. People of all stripes can be ignorant and narrow minded. Though I’m pretty sure atheists, unlike others, are not generally known for it. That may change. But forcible violence to biblical text implies physical violence against something that is not alive nor can feel anything. That statement indicates a danger that doesn’t exist.
How should Christians respond to resurgent atheism? To begin with, we should recognize that this is the direction our culture is going.
Keep your conduct among the atheists honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:12)
I believe there is also a passage about “Fruit of the Spirit” Or “They shall know you by your fruit…” That’s the only “evidence” of being a christian. Evidence anyone can manifest if they choose it for his/herself. Considering the poor condition of American culture it can be easily argued that those who “believe” aren’t manifesting any “fruit” others can learn from. It’s quite the opposite, actually.
If there is anything good about this, it could be the way that it helps to clarify the spiritual issues. It is mortally dangerous to be an atheist, but at least when people say that they don’t believe, they are clear about what they do not believe.
When you realize a large section of the population believe in
1) mass extinction of the human race sometime around the time of the rapture
2)When one will be flown (without benefit of vehicle) into outer space naked
3) want to believe in a god who will torture and burn your friends and family for all eternity
4)And are so morally and ethically correct that they’re supposed to have no fear of death under any circumstances
THEN you’ll realize just how laughable and suspect your statement of “morally dangerous” is.
You should also realize that only a moral person can realize how immoral that sounds. You are right about it clarifying some issues.
madmonq,
Hmmmm. This piece was written by Dr. Philip Ryken. He knows more about theology than you will ever know. This piece was written to Christians to prepare them for Dawkins’ and Harris’ disciples who will try to destroy the faith of believers using the arguments Dawkins uses in his book, which, by the way, are completely of the Straw Man Fallacy form.
Now, with that in mind, you made some pretty bold statements here about your perception of Christianity. Are you using Dawkin’s Straw Man Fallacy method of “reasoning” or are you being honest? Let’s see…
You said, “god given faith makes it “real.” No, we don’t believe that. We believe that God given faith enables us to see the truth. Without that regeneration there is no possibility of ever seeing it. Sorry.
You said, “Furthermore, they read the Bible with such rigid literalism that they sound like fundamentalists, doing forcible violence to the biblical text.
Somewhat agreed. People of all stripes can be ignorant and narrow minded. Though I’m pretty sure atheists, unlike others, are not generally known for it. That may change. But forcible violence to biblical text implies physical violence against something that is not alive nor can feel anything. That statement indicates a danger that doesn’t exist.”
Professing Christians who are not regenerate read the Bible just like an atheist or an agnostic, etc. They can’t understand it anymore than you can. Without the Holy Spirit opening the heart to the truth in it there can only be a superficial understanding of God’s Word. Is this a danger. Perhaps…
You said that the fruit of the spirit is the only marker of Christian genuineness and that anyone can do that. Wrong on both points. Their are several markers of Christian genuineness that only genuine Christians have as they live their lives. These markers start small and grow. No unregenerate Christian can counterfeit them either. Here is an excerpt from one of my posts describing this:
The following is a summary of a document by John MacArthur taken from the reference section of my John MacArthur Study Bible. The title of it is, “The Character of Genuine Saving Faith.” The document has two sections. The first section is titled, “Evidences that neither prove nor disprove one’s faith.” He lists seven things that cannot be used to prove or disprove whether a person is really a Christian or not. Here they are: Visible morality, intellectual knowledge, religious involvement active ministry, conviction of sin, assurance, and time of decision.
The next section is titled, “The fruit / proofs of authentic / true Christianity.” Here they are: Love for God, repentance from sin, genuine humility, devotion to God’s glory, continual prayer, selfless love, separation from the world, spiritual growth, and obedient living.
If the first list is true of a person and the second list is false, there is cause to question the validity of one’s profession of faith. However, if the second list is true, then the first list will be also.
Your last statement is what is laughable madmonq. Sorry, but you are misrepresenting what I believe and what every genuine Christian that I know believes. That sir, is called a Straw Man Fallacy.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Samuel,
I did not write this essay, but I agree with it.
Your first statement is one declaring that Dr. Ryken is using an ad homium attack against atheists declaring that they are wrong (with no proof why) angry, irrelevant and false. Well your statement is a form of the Straw Man Fallacy argument. You are misrepresenting what Dr. Ryken said.
First why are atheists wrong? You must remember that Dr. Ryken’s purpose in this essay was to warn Christians about the coming attacks from the disciples of Dawkins and Harris who feel compelled to attack Christianity at all points. This is wrong from our viewpoint because atheism in itself is sin. Sin is rebellion against God. What could be more sinful than refusing to believe Him?
Second, are atheists irrelevant and false? Those of the Dawkins’ and Harris’ variety are because they are attacking what they don’t understand. They use false arguments and faulty reasoning (Straw Man) and proclaim that to be true which is not true. They are forcing atheism on people as Dawkins is attempting to do in England, and put the scientists in control because scientific method cannot prove that God exists. Huh? The last people we need in control are atheistic scientists who have no moral center.
Why are they irrelevant? This probably won’t be understood by you, but here goes. The arguments of Dawkins and his disciples are irrelevant because they are arguments against a god of their own making, not The God of the Bible and my Saviour. The falseness is a product of that.
Lastly, I will not answer your faulty temporal logic. You can believe whatever you want Samuel, but you are also misrepresenting your brethren. You say your fellow atheists don’t use ad homium or outright misrepresentations of the truth against Christians. Would you like for me to send you the hate email I receive from your brethren nearly every day that are full of personal attacks and replete with Straw Man Fallacy “reasoning?” Also, reading theology proves nothing. Reading the bible as a book proves nothing.
Without the faith that God has given His people they would never know the truth.
Are there no atheists out there who know how to debate without the Straw Man as their out? I haven’t found one yet.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
You might find this thread interesting where there is theist/atheist give-and-take re a 2002 video of Dawkins giving a pep rally:
http://tinyurl.com/285ghr
A faith-as-basis discussion is the ultimate straw man argument. How can I win an argument that is not based on fact or logic but the subjectivity of what someone chooses to believe?
If you were to base your argument on the common ground of reason and not the exclusive gated community we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
And I hate to break it to you.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Luke 10 verses 25-37
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
———————————————————————————————————————–
“Go and do likewise” Other translations say “Do this and live.” I hope you understand my meaning.
madmonq,
You said, “A faith-as-basis discussion is the ultimate straw man argument. How can I win an argument that is not based on fact or logic but the subjectivity of what someone chooses to believe?”
Saving faith is neither subjective or the result of choice. It is a work of God. And you are right you cannot win an argument against Him.
As I stated earlier, you have not the ability to understand scripture.
Was Jesus telling those listening to Him that they must do good works in order to be saved? That would be the opposite of everything else He taught. No, He was saying that those who have genuine faith WILL DO this sort of thing. I hate to break it to you, but you need to repent and believe sir and I pray that you will by His grace.
Oh, and by the way, a Straw man argument is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth in order to argue against the lie while seeming to be arguing against the truth. How is refusing to allow Straw Man arguments against our faith a Straw Man argument?
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
oy… I thank God for men like you, Mike