When Atheists and Christians Agree

With a title as positively scandalous as “When Atheists and Christians Agree,” you know this article is going to be good!

[That’s a teaser, folks.  I’ve been watching movie promotions quite a lot lately, and I am trying out some borrowed methods to increase my viewership].

Imagine that you are having a debate with your friend about politics.  It doesn’t matter what issue you are debating about or what side you are on – let’s suppose you are a Democrat and your friend is a Republican.  And in the middle of this heated debate, your Republican friend looks up at the sky and says “well, the reason I’m a Republican is that I find the sky to be blue.  It might be hard for you to understand…after all, you’re only a simple Democrat and probably are color-blind anyway.”

A couple of weeks ago, we had a delightful guest poster on this blog named Grundy, who was arguing for an atheist point of view.  And I must admit that often, when reading his post, I felt like the Democrat in our hypothetical example must feel (if she is the fully-color-vision-capable person I take her to be).  She probably feels like replying “but the sky is blue to me, too, my fair Republican friend, and yet I’m still a Democrat.”

Well, that’s how I reacted while reading much of Grundy’s post on why he was an atheist.  I kept thinking, “ok, sure, I’m with you…that’s how life seems to me, too…and yet I’m still a Christian.  I see it as blue as you see it, but it doesn’t affect my faith at all.”

So today, and next week, we are going to cover four of the primary reasons Grundy lists as to why he is an atheist.  And it turns out that most of the time, the personal reasons he gives for atheism are things that also probably equally apply to me.  In other words, Grundy and I agree on a large percentage of what he said: We simply do not agree that these things are arguments for atheism.

In each case, I’ll quote the subject heading from Grundy’s list of reasons for being an atheist and then my own response to that.

Grundy’s reason for being an atheist: “I am comfortable with the unknown.”

Apologetic Professor response: So am I.  And so were most of the people who wrote the Bible. Paul said in the Bible “the man who thinks he knows does not yet know as he ought to know.”  He also said that he sees “through a glass darkly,” that we know only “in part,” and that the stuff we do know is temporary and will “pass away.” The book of Ecclesiastes is a 12-chapter discussion of meaninglessness and confusion that could be a textbook for some existential philosophy course.  I could go on.

Mallet Finger The authors feel non-operative management of mallet finger is indicated in cases of all soft tissue mallets and bony mallets which are well reduced in a splint without DIP joint subluxation. viagra without prescription check stock But with the modern medication like cheap viagra without prescription, Cilais and viagra it is no more an issue even if you are diagnosed with ED. viagra from canadian pharmacies On the other hand, sex can actually calm you down without posing any side-effects. Our insistent need to mimic foreign cultures and cialis pills australia adopt lifestyles inimical to healthy living is duly reflected in the current relationship. Rather, I’ll just say that since Christianity teaches that much is unknown and we should learn to accept that, I find it rather odd that someone would be an atheist for this reason.  So when Grundy says (and I’m quoting directly) “I’m simply comfortable with my lack of omniscience,” how can I respond but say: “Awesome – welcome to Christianity!  We believe none is omniscient but God, so you’ll fit in fantastically well with us!”

To be fair, Grundy does elaborate here about how Christians have used God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.  That’s true – we have.  I’ve discussed this myself before on this blog, as have other Christians (such as Francis Collins).  I’m not a fan of the “God of the gaps” approach to apologetics.  So basically Grundy and I agree on everything relevant to this issue…and yet, curiously, my faith in Christ is completely unaffected.  As a result, I am left to conclude that this argument is essentially irrelevant – Christians are not led to have a fear of the unknown by the Bible and we don’t need gaps in our knowledge to demonstrate that God exists.  We can’t demonstrate that God exists; but He can.  Since it turns out He is real after all, I don’t trouble too much about it.

Grundy’s reason for being an atheist: “I am comfortable with chance.”

Apologetic Professor response: I am comfortable with chance, too.  It turns out, if Christianity was true, so was God – since He allowed the ultimate random-noise generator to be introduced into the universe…that generator that we call free will

Really, on the surface, this is quite a strange a straw man to raise against the faith that I believe so heartily in.  Atheism provides no more, or no less, reason to assume that life is constructed of chance events.  Most atheists are materialistic determinists for a reason – and materialistic determinism doesn’t suggest chance exists, but precisely the opposite: It suggests that everything in this closed natural system is a result of something else in that closed natural system.  Chance in an atheistic world simply means “those physical processes we do not yet understand,” since the idea is that if we could understand them all, everything is predictable (and therefore nothing is actually due to chance).  It is probably only through Divine intervention that anything like true chance could enter the universe.

Now, my own argument in the above cleverly-written-but-intellectually-vapid paragraph is fatally flawed by quantum mechanics and the theory of indeterminism – in other words, some aspects of the movement of particles appear random and maybe that’s how it is.  But, really, at the very least, all that is pretty consistent with any theory of the universe. I don’t think pursuing this line of reasoning gets us any closer to determining if God actually exists. My reasons for believing in God would essentially remain unchanged whether we talk about chance or not, and personally, I like chance.  I certainly do not have a discomfort with it.

Having said all that, it turns out that – for those of you who read his post – Grundy does make some good arguments in this section. But as they really have little to do with chance per se, and they are more substantive, I’ll deal with them a couple of posts from now.

In summary, Grundy stating he is an atheist because he is (a) comfortable with the unknown and (a) comfortable with chance strikes me a bit as stating he is an atheist because he finds the sky blue.  I find it blue, too; but we are still really no nearer to answering the fundamental question at hand.  

Next week, we cover how Grundy and I are equally comfortable with our eventual non-existence and how we both have a strong distaste for absolute authority – and yet, curiously, my faith remains scandalously unchanged by these points of agreement.

This entry was posted in Does God Exist?, Myths About Christianity. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to When Atheists and Christians Agree

  1. Although I’m sure Grundy can, and will, speak for himself, I’d like to point out that your particular version of Christianity is no more normative than is Grundy’s (or my) atheism; so while his reasons for atheism may be perfectly compatible with your faith, they may not be so compatible with much of what has passed, historically, for Christianity or with the way many–I won’t say most–Christians view their faith and their God. Secondly, I’m not sure why you expect anyone to find it the least bit scandalous that your faith remains unchanged by Grundy’s explication–so far as I could tell, he was only explaining himself, not trying to convert you. (Were he trying to do that, he would no doubt seize on points of agreement between the two of you and exclaim, “Awesome–welcome to atheism!”) I’m pretty sure that, when all is said and done, intelligent theists and intelligent atheists have all sorts of things in common, and even perhaps more in common than not: except, of course, for belief in God.

  2. The Apologetic Professor says:

    Jack,
    All fair points. I wasn’t trying to say anyone should be a Christian because they happen to agree with me on some point — that would, in fact, be ridiculous (as you rightly say). And when I said it was “scandalous,” I was merely kidding — I was not serious in the slightest, only being cheeky. Sorry! The implication of the post was serious, which I’ll address in a second, but really, I just use a lot of hyperbolic language to make a point, and I’m sorry if that hit the wrong chord here.

    However, while I appreciate in some sense that Grundy was just trying to share his personal experiences — and I’m not trying to invalidate those — I’m not totally sure I made my point very well. My point is this: He used those personal experiences to attack what I believe, and thus I am simply trying to clarify that (a) my own experiences on some domains are similar, and thus (b) the sum total of our two experiences doesn’t make a good argument for either atheism or Christianity. Now, specifically to your points:

    (1) I of course realize that my “particular version of Christianity” is not totally normative, in the same sense that people across all belief systems show great variability within those systems. Plenty of Christians are simple-minded zealots who could not think themselves out of a one-sided paper box; plenty of atheists are the same. I get that. My point is that, for me personally, it is not a compelling reason to reject Christianity and accept atheism to say that it has something to do with “fear of the unknown.” I wasn’t constructing a positive argument for my faith, only rebutting the argument Grundy made against it.

    I realize many people DO accept Christianity because they fear the unknown; many people accept atheism because it allows them more freedom from “rules.” But I’m not talking about that — I’m talking about the minimal things you have to believe to accept Christian teaching. And to suggest that I must have accepted Christianity because I am afraid of the unknown (more than other people anyway — actually, to some degree everyone both loves and fears the unknown) is simply false; as false as saying that you accepted atheism because you wanted to commit a crime. I respect that Grundy may have had different experiences with different Christians, but this debate isn’t between THOSE Christians and Grundy — it is between me and Grundy. I can only discuss my own experiences from my own perspective.

    (2) And Jack, maybe I’m wrong here — and I welcome clarification from Grundy or yourself — but it seemed to me that Grundy’s clear implication was that I, as a Christian, must believe what I believe because I fear the unknown. Otherwise what is the point of raising it in a message on a Christian apologetic blog? You don’t say things as explanatory mechanisms unless they distinguish A from B; in this case, Christian from Atheist. No one says “you can tell I’m from Louisiana because I eat food;” because everyone eats food. You say rather “you can tell I’m from Louisiana because I eat Cajun food;” because that’s something that distinguishes Louisianans from other folk.

    Thus, I find it curious in a way that you criticize my response to Grundy because “he was only explaining himself, not trying to convert you.” I don’t think you’ve read his article carefully if you think that is all it was about — I think we should be careful not to use a double-standard (probably too strong a term, but I’m tired and don’t have a lot of time to edit, so I hope you take in the right spirit). I didn’t mind the cheekiness in his post one bit, and have rightly praised it for the excellent piece that it was. But I find it a little odd (for lack of a better word) to criticize me for responding in kind…under the pretext that his post was just a soft discussion of his own personal experience. In the very section you mention, he says “Regardless of how many lives you touch or how much wealth you accumulate, in a million years your only legacy will be atoms dispersed across the galaxy.” That isn’t just about personal experience, it’s a blatant attack on what I believe that was based on the argument that “he was comfortable with the unknown,” which only makes sense as an attack if it is based on the assumption that I was NOT comfortable. That assumption is false — I have just as much right to debate the relevant assumption as he has to make it.

    Maybe, however, I am simply projecting from my own past experiences, and if so, I ask that both you and Grundy forgive me! I find the game of saying “I’m an atheist because I don’t fear the unknown, unlike those Christians” and then, when I try to respond, saying “you can’t attack my personal experience” absolutely maddening. Of course, it could be karma at work here — since I use that kind of irritating argument myself on this blog! (As you will no doubt note, haha).

    Having said all that, I do definitely agree with you in your central thesis, and, for the record, I was not in ANY way trying to say that it was a good argument for Christianity to simply point out similarities between our beliefs. That wasn’t what I meant by the offending “welcome to Christianity!” comment at all, and I’m sorry it came off that way.

    And thanks as always for keeping me on my toes with thoughtful comments! It is most appreciated!!

  3. Shawn says:

    Jack – I’d like to address another piece of your comment, because it’s commonly used as an argument against Christianity, but I think it’s really an argument against Christianity AS IT’S PRACTICED (sorry for the yelling, I don’t know how to make italics on here, which would fit better) than as it’s intended. You say “so while his reasons for atheism may be perfectly compatible with your faith, they may not be so compatible with much of what has passed, historically, for Christianity or with the way many–I won’t say most–Christians view their faith and their God.” It is true that one of the strongest arguments against Christianity is the beahvior of Christians! Fair enough, but that’s doesn’t make the case sufficiently. It certainly does point out the inconsistency between beliefs and action, which are true for all of us, believers or not. But it doesn’t say anything conclusive about whether the underlying belief is actually accurate. For instance, I may say “I think people who believe vaccinations never cause autism are obnoxious” has nothing to do with whether vaccinations, in fact, ever cause autism. (Though, as I think about it, perhaps if those same vaccination supporters do not follow their words with their actions, perhaps that seems to make the case more strongly, but in fact it’s irrelevant to the fact/fiction of whether vaccinations cause autism.)

    (Oh, and vaccinations don’t cause autism. This just seemed the best example I could come up with this late at night.)

  4. Grundy says:

    First, I like you, Jack. You represented me well in your comment.

    Second, “When Atheists and Christians Agree” has the same ominous sound as “When Animals Attack” hits the news.

    My original post was largely a run-down of personal qualities I hold that inform my skepticim of religion. I provided no arguments for atheism because I agree with a comment on that original post that stated that there can be no arguments for atheism. This is because theism includes such a range of vaguely defined gods, many unfalsifiable, that it is impossible to form an argument that accompassess all theistic beliefs. The problem of evil is an effective argument for some flavors of Christianity, but I’d have to nail down the Christian beliefs in questions before presenting it. The idea that Dr. Conway’s beliefs are not normative even within Christianity is an understatement. To his credit, his beliefs seem more consistent with reality than most of the Christians I debate.

    That said, I took some jabs at common religious beliefs within my run-down, some of which Dr. Conway did in fact hold and took issue with. Hence the rebuttals which I have been enjoying with gritted teeth.

    To quickly address some of the meat on this post–a word where everything that happens is God’s will is devoid of chance. If that’s not what you believe, then this particular section is not relevant to you. However, when you said the naturalist has less reason to accept chance is just untrue. My other blog is a poker blog, so I’ll draw an example from that experience. Drawing a card from a randomized 52 card deck will provide an instance of chance. How is the supernatural needed for this? And the example of God allowed/provided chance in the form of free will is only an assumption considering there is no way to prove that we have actual free will rather than an illusion of free will. It’s a strange assumption for a Christian to make in the first place. If you think God’s omniscience includes knowledge of a certain future, that means we are only following our predestined script–but, again, this might not apply to Dr. Conway’s Christianity. (If God exists, I hope God doesn’t care about doctrine specifics with all the various doctrines out there.)

    The concept of faith informed my position that believers are uncomfortable with both chance and the unknown. Faith is a complete acceptance of something without proof. Faith is a position of perceived certainty, or at least an attempt at perceived certainty, which is so highly valued in Christianity (and most other religions) that it clearly shows they are uncomfortable with uncertainty. I’m uncertain about everything, rather I take a probabilistic view (a phrase Dr. Conway ironically used in his original post.) This is why I accept models that best describe reality as we observe it without assuming they are absolute truths–in other words, science. Faith is the opposite of a probabilistic view, so, to be consistent, I guess Dr. Conway either doesn’t have faith or defines it very differently.

  5. Grundy says:

    I notice a couple typos in my last comment…but I see no way to edit it. So deal with it. In fact, here’s anather.

  6. To quote the late Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?” I believe, in the end, we are all Possibilians, and David Eagleman shall lead us. I’m willing to bet that, belief in God and Jesus aside, Grundy and Luke Conway and Shawn and I would all be perfectly compatible, get along just fine, and find each other absolutely congenial company. So why exactly are we arguing? Life is too short, and I’m pretty sure that if God exists, he recognizes the futility of expecting fallible, mortal creatures to figure out Eternal Truth in the span of three score and ten years (the first fifty of which don’t really count). I’ll say this much for atheists, though: we never tell our disputants that they’re going to hell if they disagree with us. (Nor does Dr. Conway, I hasten to add.)

  7. I simply needed to thank you so much yet again. I do not know what I would have used in the absence of the entire creative ideas shared by you directly on such a subject matter. This has been the frightful concern in my view, nevertheless finding out your well-written style you resolved it took me to cry with fulfillment. I’m just grateful for this service and thus pray you realize what an amazing job that you’re putting in teaching the rest with the aid of a blog. I know that you’ve never got to know any of us.