Christians should never allow Atheists the luxury of claiming to be the exclusive purveyors of logical thought. Though there certainly are many Christians who are guilty of violations of the rules of sound logic (then again most of us have been guilty of this at some point in life), the way in which many atheists present Christianity seems to be simply an attempt to protect their own worldviews from proper scrutiny.
The worn-out line enlightenment narrative that so often comes from atheists, (especially those who consider themselves former Christians) often goes something like this: “I used to be one of those Bible-
thumping, born-again Christians but then I discovered logic and reason and realized that the Bible is just a bunch of fairy-tales.” Even when discussing loved ones who are still Christians, they adopt a condescending tone of pity, recognizing that they “mean well, and need religion to cope with life.” Such arrogance is nauseating, to say the least. Worldviews must be explored in a reasonable manner with each being evaluated for evidence and explanatory power. These attitudes reveal nothing less than a back-handed attempt at creating a straw man of the opposing viewpoint.
The first flawed aspect of the common atheist self-representation is the logic vs. faith depiction of the debate. To represent the whole of Christianity as a bunch of back country rustics that couldn’t tell a logical contradiction if it bit them on the foot is to demonstrate a glaring ignorance of history. (Certainly, there have been more than enough Christians who have hobbled their message by using bad arguments, but atheists have their own set of commonly used fallacies) The reality is that the history of Western Civilization contains a multitude of astute thinkers that examined matters of Christian faith and belief with a logical and rational elegance that would stymie the average Richard Dawkins groupie. In recent times we have Christian thinkers such as C. S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and many others. Disagree with them if you like, challenge their arguments, but no intellectually honest person can claim that they are illogical people.
The problem is that atheists often misrepresent how logic works. The rules of logic dictate how conclusions can follow from a particular set of premises. However, an argument can have flawless logic and still have a dead wrong conclusion if it begins with a false assumption. So, being logical does not guarantee that one is right. Similarly, to claim that a whole belief system is illogical, (especially one like Christianity that has so much intellectual history) is usually a grievous oversimplification or simply a cop-out. For example, an atheist might say something like, “Belief in God is simply illogical; you have no empirical evidence to prove he exists.” But, what is that really saying? Its saying, “As an atheist, I am also a naturalist (don’t believe in the spiritual world), and an empiricist (knowledge can only come from sensory information), and because any evidence that you might present doesn’t work solely within these boundaries, then it doesn’t make sense to believe in God.” The problem is that this argument shields those underlying assumptions from critique. If a person is going to engage in honest debate, he must be willing to defend any one of the foundational assumptions of his worldview.
The second aspect of the common atheist narrative is a form of ad hominem fallacy and is one of the most intellectuality dishonest attitudes to be found among atheists. This is the “religion is a crutch” accusation. As I said already, this is an arrogant and condescending position that implies that only the weak would need a crutch to shield them from reality of life. First, I must point out (since we are trying to be logical), that even if this were true – that every Christian was a week pansy that needs religion to cope with life, it has no bearing upon whether the claims of Christianity are true. (In fact, it is quite possibly true that humanity needs a “crutch” because of some inherent weakness) However, history is full of Christians who have proven the opposite true. Martyrs have faced the mouths of lions and been burned at the stake. Christians have stood up for the weak in the face of tyranny and in opposition to popular sentiment; they have risked everything to save victims of oppression when the law would not. They have abandoned comfort and material wealth and embraced poverty in order to minister to the needy. The strength that Christians have displayed throughout history is evident and to imply that Christianity is for the weak is ignorant and serves only to deflect discussion from the opposing worldview.
However, it is also dishonest to pretend that many people don’t adopt atheism for purposes other than a simple light bulb moment in which they came to realize that it doesn’t make sense to believe in God. I have read and listened to a multitude of atheist “testimonies,” and I have found that most people who move from some belief in God to adamant denial of His existence do so largely because it fits their lifestyle choices. They find the moral relativism freeing. (no doubt it is, just like jumping off a cliff without a parachute is – until the ground comes up to meet you) They want to be able to choose which moral standards that they follow, and don’t want to be bothered by the inconvenient ones. They want to embrace immoral lifestyles and write off any guilt they feel as the residual effects of Christianity’s moral oppression of society. As I said, these reasons don’t change whether Atheists’ claims are true. The problem is that many atheists are not willing to be completely honest about their motivations; instead they protect them from scrutiny beneath a feeling of personal intellectual superiority.
Any atheist reading at this point might argue that I’m making unfair generalizations that are not always true. In answer, I will readily agree that my description does not fit all atheists. To be sure, there are some who make well-constructed arguments against belief in God. Even though I disagree with them, I have to respect their knowledge and skill. Furthermore, even though as a Christian I would like to see every person come to a saving knowledge of Christ, I know that some will never believe, but their critiques of Christian ideas can exercise Christians’ intellectual muscles and help them maintain a strong worldview.
Here, I have mostly in mind the average Atheist that I have met in my own experience. (Admittedly, my sample may be biased, or maybe the loudest atheists are not always the most articulate) They often present themselves as highly intellectual, yet they deal in clichéd arguments, treating them as if they were something novel even though they have been considered by Christians for over a thousand years. I’ve seen these atheists ask the “Who made God,” question with smug self-assuredness as if no Christian had ever thought of it, thinking that they can shut down all discussion and declare themselves winners. These are simply attacks upon a caricature – a straw man version of Christianity that exists only in their own minds. Now, I don’t expect much honesty from those who embrace moral relativism, but if a person wants to engage in genuine ideological debate, intellectual honesty is absolutely vital if only for practical reasons. Without it, two sides can lob attacks at each other that don’t even address the other person’s actual views. The first step must be for a person to genuinely attempt to understand the opposing view from the opposition’s own perspective.
What I want to do most of all is to encourage other Christians to do two things. First, don’t stoop to the level of tactics that are common among many atheists. Be able and ready to consider all of your beliefs objectively, and be able to identify and defend the foundational aspects of your worldview. In dialogues with atheists, don’t just resort to “canned” answers that you pull out of your mental Rolodex. (For example, while it is true that the Bible says “the fool says in his heart there is no God,” calling your opponent a fool is not a very good way to engage in useful dialog.) Know the debate inside and out, understand the systems of belief of others, and be able to meaningfully address what they say, not what you think they must believe.
Finally, we must not let atheists claim the high ground of reasoned belief. The assumptions of atheism must be challenged, and atheists must be forced to defend those assumptions in any debate. All of the insinuations of intellectual superiority must be pushed aside in order to get at the heart of the belief system. I believe that when all of the distractions are eliminated, the Christian worldview stands upon its own feet and proves itself to be true, practical, and possessing of the most explanatory power compared to any other belief system.
Recent Comments