
I was at the bookstore several months ago examinig the book 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins pretty much claims that he will convince any Christian that reads his book - to be persuaded that Christinity is basically a joke, a crutch if you will; that stupid people believe to cope with the crappy state of the world. If you're not convinced of this fact by the end of his book, Dawkins believes you to be an idiot, if not utterly insane and stupid.
And so now I am battling with being an idiot, stupid, and utterly insane.
What if he's right? What if there is no God and I am wrong?
So perhaps I just happened to be a freak-born American who believes in the 'American-Christianity' and it's all a cosmic joke about location, location, location.
How can I even converse with an aetheist of this sort? My worldview is drastically differen't from theirs. Morality, the things I deem are important, how I raise my family, how I vote, those I respect and don't respect; all stem from my worldview. The fact that I believe in a god drastically removes me from those that don't.
For example - Let's say I believe murder is wrong (which I do by the way). I need to answer 'Why do I think murder is wrong?'
Well I would say, God created men equal and told men that murder was not allowed. God deems human life valuable and only he gives it and only he should be allowed to take it away. It's in the ten commandments after all. So my desire to not murder the annoying people in traffic, and my choice to not murder them, stems from this intrinsic belief in a God that has set rules. Rules that I am not only oblicated to comply with, but am held accountable to as well.
But this God I just mentioned, to an aetheist is viewed as such from this clip.
An aetheist is not bound by these 'God-given' rules at all. Then, would aetheist deem murder right or wrong? Most of the aetheists I know would agree that murder is wrong. But then you have to ask them the question, 'Why is murder wrong?' At this the most common answer is because of humanity being of importance. Aetheists would say humans shouldn't kill humans because humans don't have the right to. But where would they get or not get this right? Hitler thought himself right in killing off Jews. As an aetheist, what grounds would I base the proposition to not kill people? What premise? If you say because humanity is important - I would say that that is just your personal view. If you say because the government says so - I would say the government is just a bunch of people propogting their views. If you say it's the consensis vote - I would say to heck with the consensis, I am looking out for me, myself, and I.
If I were an aetheist, and there were no consequences for my actions outside whatever government I was in - then the war in Darfur really isn't that bad at all is it? I mean after all, if some decides their lives can be better lived by removing others lives, what grounds or basis do I have to give them otherwise? I can't think of any.
The truth: If there is no God, then I have no basis to create any sort of set rights for myself. I only comply with the law out of fear of govenrmental justice. My morality then - If I can get away with it - I will steal, kill, threaten, detroy, anything my heart so desires. The only reason not to do whatever I wish- is through fear that someone somewhere disagrees with me and could punish me because of their majority voted rules.
All this to say that Aetheists cannot really even begin in conversation with Christians, on any understanding level, because their worldviews are so drastically differen't that neither party can truly understand the other. Aetheists view faith as a crutch. Christianity views aetheism as rebellion against God.
They don't meet eye to eye, or even eye to knee, or anywhere else.
At this point, I wouldn't get into an argument with them because I know that an aetheist cannot (it is truly impossible) for him to understand why I believe the way I do.
There is this verse in the BIble which reads 'the fool says in his heart, 'There is no God." (Psalm 14:1) I find it intersting that it does not say 'The fool says in his mind, There is no God.'
I think aetheists rebel from the concept of God for a wide variety of reasons. I think their hearts have grown cold against God for these reasons. But to deny the existance of God is an issue of the heart. Not of the mind. Which if this is the case, really negates arguing with one another on the intellectual level. Dawkins will never think I am anything more than insane for believing in God.
I recently watched the movie 'Expelled' with Ben Stein who interviews Dawkins.

The movie is fantastic and I would encourage all people anywhere to go see it. (It is not a Christian movie - Ben Stein is a Jew) But the movie does an excellent job of painting the picture of the results of true aetheism. Life without hope.
Personally, life without hope isn't worth living. Sadly, some aetheists in the movie agree with this.

Another huge help on this matter would be Rob Bell's video 'Everything is Spiritual.' I cannot endorse this video highly enough. I think it really narrows down the importance of believing in God, as well as presenting how science and faith go hand and hand, not hand against hand.
So I was asked, 'How do I witness to aetheists?' I don't really. Not in the traditional sense anyway. Sure, I communicate to them my belief in God. But rarely do I find that aetheists can be won over to faith by arguing with them. You cannot wear down an aetheist on the intellectual level. They think they have it all figured out. 1+1=2. That's the world for the aetheist. That's it.
But then, an aetheist cannot understand why someone would lay down their lives for another. Not in the intellectual sense. They cannot understand to any significant intellectual level why murder is wrong.
This is not to say to lose hope in aetheists. Hopefully over time, as the aetheist sees things that he cannot explain away with his theoretical logic, then the aetheist's hearts my grow softer. And then maybe they will want to consider God.
But don't look for a perfect track-booklet, or a book titled 'Ten ways to win the aetheist' or such. Those answers aren't in the least correct for everyone. I would say get in there, build a relationship with the aetheist. Learn to respect them for who they are. And do not be afraid to share your faith with them. They may not buy it at all, but perhaps through the process you will know better how to understand them in the future.
Cheers.
3 comments:
I have a friend in marketing who told me, "people buy on emotion and defend their purchases rationally." I can't agree more, and I think this spills over to religion, too. People believe what they believe based on emotion, and defend their beliefs rationally. I don't think Dawkins (or anyone else, for that matter) is an atheist because the arguments are rock solid. I think he (and all other atheists) is an atheist because he was hurt by someone claiming to be religious. When you listen to him, you can tell that he has been wounded. I bet he has a story.
You don't argue atheists into the kingdom--you love them in.
John F. Haught had a GREAT article about this in the latest issue of The Christian Century. He calls Dawkins, Samuel Harris, and Christopher Hitchens "soft-core atheists" (as opposed to the "hard-core atheists," Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre) because they like Christian ethics without Christian beliefs. At one point, he asks Dawkins, "Before you get too comfortable with the godless world you long for, you will be required by the logic of any consistent skepticism to pass through the disorienting wilderness of nihilism. Do you have the courage to do that?" Wow.
Good points. The "new atheism" naively thinks that you can get rid of God and still be left with some semblance of meaning in the world.
What a very well thought out and written article.
I've posted a response at my main site.
Thanks for sharing your take.
Peace
Skep
Post a Comment