They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
Atheism is the thinking man’s religious skepticism, without a doubt. It is an incredibly complicated series of beliefs (or rather, un-beliefs) that would be far to complex to fully detail in a single post. But technically, at its most basic, atheism is a singular belief surrounded by numerous, complicated pathways and reasoning to arrive at that singular belief. At its most basic, atheism is “a” (without) “theos” (god), and practitioners of this anti-religion firmly hold to the belief that there is no God (or gods, as they like to say).
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Anti-theism
Atheism is not the same thing as agnosticism which holds that even IF there is a God (or gods), the truth about such a claim is completely unknowable. Therefore, while agnostics might not declare outright that “God is a myth,” they are generally tend to be anti-religious as they commonly agree with Thomas Henry Huxley’s statement: “do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Atheism is also not the same thing as antitheism which stands in direct opposition to God and all religions. One of the front-men for the antitheist movement is Christopher Hitchens who has declared:
“I’m not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”
and that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct,” but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion.”
As you can see, there are different levels, categories, and variations of disbelief in God (there are 6 main categories of agnosticism alone). But the simplest differentiation that can be made (hopefully without oversimplifying anything) is as follows:
- Atheists: “God cannot be proven to exist, therefore does not exist.”
- Agnostics: “God cannot be proven to exist, therefore his existence is completely unknowable.”
- Antitheists: “God cannot be proven to exist, therefore anything regarding God – religions, churches, and so on -are harmful to society at large.”
Is belief in God a choice we make?
Many who fit into one of these classifications also fit into another because there are really only two options when it comes to the existence of God: either he truly exists, or he doesn’t. But it is precisely this issue and the question of belief in God’s existence that lies at the heart of the atheist / Christian debate. And the main question is: Is belief in God a choice?
Is disbelief a choice of will, or the only logical conclusion that is left given a lack of evidence? Christians generally tend to argue that disbelief is a choice of the will – an arrogant, stubborn will. Atheists tend to argue that disbelief is the only available option – because belief in the impossible is just that, impossible.
Here is a very interesting (atheist) article about the nature of beliefs and choices. It provides some good insight into how atheists think about belief vs. choice: http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/BeliefChoice.htm
The first page is the most interesting for me, though there are good points throughout (though he mainly seems to be rehashing and detailing many of the arguments he makes on the first page). Here are some quotes:
I try to explain to [evangelicals] that I do not in fact “choose” atheism. Instead, atheism is the only possible position given my present state of knowledge. I can no more “choose” to just believe in the existence of a god than I can choose to believe that this computer doesn’t exist. Belief requires good reasons, and although people may differ on what constitutes “good reasons,” it is those reasons which cause belief, not choice.
…
If a belief is impossible, then the opposite is not something we simply choose: it is the only option, something we are forced to accept.
…
The beliefs people tend to be “proudest” of are those which they also say no one can deny. If no one can deny something, then it isn’t a choice to believe it.
Dear Atheist, you may be right when you assert that belief isn’t a choice.
Based on these quotes, I can get a much better understanding of the argument that belief isn’t a choice – and I might even be inclined to agree with that.
Basically, it does seem that Christians and atheists sit on opposite sides of the fence – not necessarily by choice – but perhaps by how they view the world and the evidence within existence that they have been exposed to.
Atheists may argue AGAINST the existence of God based on moral, ethical, and historical evidences – “Why would a just God allow such suffering / killing in His name / unbelievers – without evidence enough to believe – to perish in hell?” And the evidence they possess may be sufficient for them to disbelieve in God, not necessarily by “choice” but because it is the only logical conclusion they can reach based on their own observations and understanding.
Christians may argue FOR the existence of God based on personal experience, evidence in creation, and historical proofs, “If there is no God, why does all creation fit so perfectly together / there are no living “missing links” / prophecies within the Bible have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy – according to the knowledge and evidence available to us / I – or my friends or historical figures – have personal experiences detailing the providence of God (due to “amazing coincidences” that have occurred) / Jesus’ resurrection is, according to Dr. Simon Greenleaf Law professor at Harvard University, “the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion” (He was an atheist: http://y-jesus.com/blog/simon-greenleaf-resurrection)?”
Here is another interesting quote from the atheist article that helps:
Instead of focusing on the actual beliefs, which are not themselves choices, it can be more important and more productive to focus instead on how a person has arrived at their beliefs because that is the result of willful choices. As a matter of fact, it is my experience that it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theists and atheists more than the details of a person’s theism.
Finding and accepting truth that only fits your own world view
And that all reminds me of something that Jon Stewart has pointed out numerous times on his show – that people (he targets Fox News) choose news clips, stories, and opinions that support their general narrative about how the world works. Therefore, atheists may study many negative “proofs” and evidence against the existence of God and further solidify their belief that there isn’t one – because all their evidence stands against it. And Christians may study numerous books, “proofs” and evidences FOR God’s existence and hand in the world, and further solidify their belief that there IS a God – because all their evidence stands FOR it.
However, atheists may not all study the same Christian “proof” texts – or with the same logical “eyes” that they study atheist “proofs” with. And Christians aren’t likely to study atheist “proofs” with open eyes. Basically, neither group is likely to seriously study the other group’s views, and if they do, they will approach everything with skepticism.
So then, both groups may not necessarily “choose” to believe anything – but just accept the the logical conclusion that their own experiences and evidence forces them into. For atheists, belief in God may be impossible, so they are “forced” into unbelief. But for Christians, disbelief in God may be equally impossible, so they are “forced” into belief. In either case, “choice” can be argued to be absent from the equation.
So what does the Bible say on this fact that belief is NOT a choice?
2 Thessalonians 2:10b-12They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
Actually, the first verse above from 2 Thessalonians – in context – is talking about the Man of Lawlessness at the end of the age and before Jesus’ Second Coming. However, I do think that it provides a sufficient thought to add to this discussion.
Originally, I found the verse on an atheist page titled “An Atheist’s Favorite Bible Verses.” The page author wrote: “God forces people to believe in lies and then condemns them for it.” So, are these accusations true? Would God force people to believe in lies and then condemn them? Does God actually send a “powerful delusion” to people? And if so, what kind of a God is that?
God sends delusion in response to human decision
Actually, in this verse, God is not the instigator. He only sends delusion as a result of former action. This is clearly evidenced by the first part of verse 11: “For this reason…” There are three causes that produce the effect of God’s deliverance of delusion:
- Verse 10: They refused to love the truth
- Verse 12: [They have] not believed the truth
- Verse 12: [They have] delighted in wickedness
John Calvin, in his commentary on these verses writes:
Lest the wicked should complain that they perish innocently, “Sans cause et estans innocens;” — “Without cause, and being innocent.” and that they have been appointed to death rather from cruelty on the part of God, than from any fault on their part, Paul shews on what good grounds it is that so severe vengeance from God is to come upon them — because they have not received in the temper of mind with which they ought the truth which was presented to them, nay more, of their own accord refused salvation.
…
In short, Paul declares that Antichrist will be the minister of God’s righteous vengeance against those who, being called to salvation, have rejected the gospel, and have preferred to apply their mind to impiety and errors.
…
For though the domination of Antichrist has been cruel, none have perished but those who were deserving of it, nay more, did of their own accord choose death. (Proverbs 8:36)
And about the delusion that God sends:
The working of delusion. He means that errors will not merely have a place, but the wicked will be blinded, so that they will rush forward to ruin without consideration. For as God enlightens us inwardly by his Spirit, that his doctrine may be efficacious in us, and opens our eyes and hearts, that it may make its way thither, so by a righteous judgment he delivers over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) those whom he has appointed to destruction, that with closed eyes and a senseless mind, they may, as if bewitched, deliver themselves over to Satan and his ministers to be deceived.
James Burton Coffman’s commentary adds this as well:
Populations who will not accept God’s morality, but who love evil, will be quite easily deceived by Satan; God himself will even send hardening and blindness to those who have preferred evil, in order to hasten their destruction. The judicial hardening that God inflicts upon those who love wickedness is an extensive New Testament subject.
Belief is not a choice, but rather the result of past choices
Even atheists can (and do) agree that while belief is not a choice, it does come about as a result of past choices. I’ll point you again to the earlier atheist quote:
Instead of focusing on the actual beliefs, which are not themselves choices, it can be more important and more productive to focus instead on how a person has arrived at their beliefs because that is the result of willful choices.
So then, who is deluded?
Richard Dawkins wrote the famous The God Delusion (which this artwork is partially based on) in which he “contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.” He would say (and most atheists would agree) that Christians are deluded into believing that there is a God.
But on the other hand, as we’ve previously seen, the Bible says that God sends delusion to those who have already made a choice to deny the truth (namely, of his existence). So a Christian could argue that atheists are the ones who are truly deluded.
Still, atheists’ disbelief in God’s existence may not (currently) be entirely their fault. Previously, they rejected the truth about God, and as a result, God has fed them a powerful delusion that blinds them and hardens their hearts to such a degree that they literally could not believe in God even if they wanted to. As an atheist friend of mine put it: “If someone held a gun up to my head right now, I couldn’t choose to believe in [God].”
God hides and reveals Himself of His own will
And finally, we come full-circle to the main question of this article: Is belief in God a choice? The answer is a resounding “No.” Those who don’t believe in God, can’t, because God Himself blocks their understanding of Him due to their past choices regarding His truth. And what of those who do believe? Ephesians 2:8-9 declares that even faith in Him is a gift from Him: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.” But that is a discussion for another time.
3 Comments
Hi Art, I have been reading your blog as of late and this last entry inspired me enough to post. Let me first say that gray text on a white background is rough on the eyes.
All seriousness aside, here are some of my thoughts regarding your post content: (I tried to address specific portions/quotes from your entry labeled with quotes and an (A), and followed them with a (DW) for my take)
A) “Basically, neither group is likely to seriously study the other group’s views, and if they do, they will approach everything with skepticism.”
DW) Everything *should* be approached with skepticism. Why, in religious communities, are there such negative connotations associated with that word? Skepticism keeps people more honest (with themselves and with others), and allows us to catch glimpses of the world that aren’t mired in our own biases. It’s also what keeps us from buying six-figure alien abduction insurance.
“Trust a witness in all matters in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, nor the love of the marvelous is strongly concerned. When they are involved, require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified.”
–Huxley
A) “Dear Atheist, you may be right when you assert that belief isn’t a choice.”
DW) I understand the point that they are trying to make, but I don’t necessarily agree with it. Agnosticism is probably the only “belief” that isn’t a choice because it is simply the absence of belief in a god and the absence of a belief that there is no god. I would argue that theists and atheists must take the stand one way or the other.
Plus, where do you draw the line in regard to all other choices? Couldn’t you apply that line of reasoning to all matters, not just matters of faith? Is my (perceived) decision to go to the grocery store on Sunday just a culmination of past choices that lead me to the inevitable conclusion that *is* a trip to the grocery store on Sunday? Was it the only conceivable outcome preordained by a lifetime of experiences and my own unique processing of them…or was I just low on milk?
A) “Christians may argue FOR the existence of God based on personal experience, evidence in creation, and historical proofs”
DW) Can you post or link the evidence that they are using? The historical proofs sound interesting.
A) “Actually, in this verse, God is not the instigator. He only sends delusion as a result of former action…”
DW) Without calling too much into question the problem that arises when an omniscient creator god is not the instigator (an all-knowing God that creates/places someone in a setting and set of circumstances would have to know how that person would react to their situation given He would already know what circumstances they would encounter as well as know exactly how they would react to those circumstances and experiences…you see where this is going, yes?), let me go off on a bit of a tangent. You have broken that verse down into small manageable pieces that make sense to you. That is one person’s interpretation of that verse, but because of the Bible’s ambiguity, others could draw far different conclusions citing different (or the same!) Biblical passages as evidence. I see these religious blogs and they are rife with what I perceive to be pure opinion, so I’m curious as to how you can suppose that your conclusions are correct where all others are false? Because the Bible doesn’t explicitly state your version, how could you ever be certain that you weren’t just suffering from confirmation bias? Plus, isn’t supposing to speak for God a bit blasphemous? (This obviously doesn’t just pertain to your writings, I was simply curious as how it was justified in general.)
A) “Those who don’t believe in God, can’t, because God Himself blocks their understanding of Him due to their past choices regarding His truth.”
DW) But don’t you run into problems with this line of thinking? It just seems too absolute. For example, what if an impassioned atheist converts to Christianity later in his life? Shouldn’t his past choices have doomed him to live as someone completely incapable of belief? Or Does God simply unblock his understanding of Him after new choices have been made? Conversely, what about Christians who have lost their faith? They presumably already understand Him, so why would God block that understanding?
A) “But on the other hand, as we’ve previously seen, the Bible says that God sends delusion to those who have already made a choice to deny the truth (namely, of his existence). So a Christian could argue that atheists are the ones who are truly deluded.”
DW) That argument would only hold weight with those that believe the Bible is the direct word of God. If one dismisses that premise, that argument is no longer sound.
A) “Still, atheists’ disbelief in God’s existence may not (currently) be entirely their fault. Previously, they rejected the truth about God, and as a result, God has fed them a powerful delusion that blinds them and hardens their hearts to such a degree that they literally could not believe in God even if they wanted to.”
DW) “Even if they wanted to”? That’s bold. I don’t pretend to speak for all atheists/agnostics when I say this, but I do covet some of what I see in the believers. I look at certain theists and see knowledge of an afterlife; I see a large, welcoming community; plus, I see simple(r) answers to life’s great mysteries. All those things are very appealing to me, but I would never disavow skepticism and critical thinking in order to attain them.
“We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling.”
–Poincare
That said, I welcome a day when theists can present to me enough evidence so that I may be convinced of God’s existence. Thanks for posting your thoughts on a public blog. Although we may not agree on everything, I still find it interesting to see another point of view. Kudos.
DW, first off, let me say thanks for your well-worded and clearly articulated ideas (and the subtle suggestion to darken the font – which I have, and I’ve increased the font size). I will try to answer all your comments to the best of my ability.
You wrote:
I actually tend to agree with you on this point. As you say, “Skepticism keeps people more honest (with themselves and with others), and allows us to catch glimpses of the world that aren’t mired in our own biases.” I’ve noticed myself that when I’m given, say, Jehovah’s Witness literature to read (http://www.iamthouart.com/2011/11/06/a-graphical-portrayal-of-jehovahs-witnesses/), I’m exceptionally skeptical, and looking for flaws in it. What I was going for with my original comment was the fact that convincing someone (atheist or Christian) of the opposite side’s viewpoints, is no easy or simple task. Even if a well-intentioned member of either belief approached the other’s literature for the purpose of authentic study, there would definitely be stereotypes present, and much skepticism.
On the other hand, someone who is unconvinced of either belief (not decidedly Christian, and also not decidedly atheist) will approach either side with slightly less skepticism, and be more easily convinced by the arguments they review. Those who “seek” answers are generally more open to new ideas, while those who are firmly (or stubbornly) grounded in their beliefs will not only approach the opposite point of view with skepticism, but may also allow that skepticism to blind them to evidence and facts in contradiction to their strongly (and stubbornly) held beliefs.
———-
I also agree with this point – that belief is not (necessarily, completely) a choice. My research into this subject was prompted by a friend’s Facebook post that said “belief is not a choice. If someone held a gun to my head, I couldn’t choose to believe anything.” And while I can see the atheist point of view – that people believe what the evidence leads them to believe, I also agree with your statement – that at some point, there is a choice to be made regarding belief. It’s not like I was forced to be a Christian, I chose to. The evidence I’m aware of has strongly pointed me in that direction and indicated its truthfulness, but ultimately, I made the choice. Likewise, I have heard plenty of stories of non-Christians who are also familiar with the evidences that led me to strong faith, who may say something like, “I would be a Christian (because it is truthful) but I don’t like the implications.” Additionally, atheists must at some point choose to accept the “fact” that there is no God. An atheist is not forced into that position, and although they may defend themselves by saying that all the circumstantial evidence has led them to that inevitable conclusion, the fact remains that they themselves chose to accept that belief as true.
———-
Some of the proofs that have convinced me are as follows:
Jesus’ resurrection: I did an extensive study on it this year just before Easter and posted my findings here: http://authenticjek.wordpress.com/tag/easter/
Converted atheists: Simon Greenleaf, Lee Strobel, and C.S. Lewis are three former (famous) atheists who were converted to Christianity after taking a long, hard look at the evidences for it. Reading up on their findings and their conversions is helpful.
Christian apologetics: William Lane Craig’s debates with famous atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins book “The God Delusion”, CARM.org (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), and the newest one I stumbled upon today: winteryknight.wordpress.com are all helpful in understanding the logic and reasoning and evidences for Christianity.
Biographies related to prayer: George Mueller is a famous British evangelist who literally began the orphanage ministry in England and cared for over 10,000 orphans in his lifetime, while never once taking a salary – he prayed all the money in he needed. Saint Patrick is another Christian who had an interesting prayer life, that led him out of Irish captivity, and then back in to the land that had once enslaved him – and it was largely through his work with the tribes in Ireland that made it a relatively “Christian nation.”
My own personal testimony of prayer: For example, in the span of a single year, I married a girl who would have never dated me two years earlier, with her parents blessing who had initially been vehemently against the union, moved into a new house with all new furniture less than one month after her previous house owner had stolen all of her deposit money and left her homeless (after the bank repossessed the house) and we gave away all her furniture, and so on. There are some “coincidences” in my life that are just too perfect, and happen just too often for it to be mere chance, or even “good karma.” All of these had been bathed in constant prayer. Read some of those stories here: http://www.thiskoreanlife.com
———-
This question contains (at least) two parts.
1) Wouldn’t God know how someone would react/respond in whatever circumstance they are placed in…(endless loop of logic, yes?)
2) Why is my interpretation of the Bible here correct? Doesn’t the Bible suffer from ambiguity?
In response to your first question – just because God “knows” doesn’t mean God will place each person into a position in which they are guaranteed to do what he wants (i.e. believe in him). Much of human existence is a result of previous choices as well. A child born today and raised in an atheist home is the result of previous choices made by his parents – not God. It may be true that God knows how each person thinks and responds to different situations, but he does not remove them from some, or place them in others specifically to solidify their faith in him. If he were to do so, don’t you think a person would catch on after a while? And feel as though they were tricked into it? If their free-will was essentially removed, and they realized that free-will was removed, and that their beliefs were just a byproduct of being placed in certain situations and removed from other situations, just to believe in God, don’t you think they would choose atheism over that anyway? Just to spite God and assert their own free-will in the end? But, that is why it is up to every person to seek the truth – and seeking doesn’t mean simply asking a buddy or two, or talking to a professor, or reading a book. Seeking means investigating, as an investigative journalist – the truth.
In response to your second question. The Bible is not ambiguous. There are places in it that are more difficult to interpret than others, (especially Revelation – unfulfilled prophecies), but for the most part, it is straight forward, historical, eye-witness testimonies of events that happened. For the difficult to interpret areas, especially prophecies, a good Bible commentary is necessary (and I study those often). It’s much better to rely on wisdom and research that has accumulated over centuries – from scholars and pastors whose full-time job it was to study these things – than to simply assume that you know exactly what a difficult passage means. (Which is why sometimes there seems to be ambiguity, because too many people DON’T look into the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts for original meaning, and some people read figurative literal principles from a portion of scripture that was written in a plain literal sense.) However, in the case of the verse I broke down here, it is all a simple matter of English grammar – not Biblical interpretation. If you use the sentence, “For this reason…” there must be a reason preceding the sentence. For example. “He was late to class. For this reason, the teacher marked him absent.” The teacher in this case is not the instigator – just as God, in the verse I mentioned, is not the instigator. The reason precedes the action that is a result and begins the sentence with, “For this reason…”
———-
Another two-part question:
1) What about atheists who convert later in life? In regards to this question, I’ll point you to the doctrine of Irresistible Grace: http://carm.org/dictionary-irresistible-grace
I intend to do a blog (and art) about this more in-depth later (as well as the other tenants of Calvinism – and even Arminianism).
2) What about Christians who leave the faith? I will argue (as most pastors and theologians will) that those Christians who leave the faith must not have truly been Christians in the first place. There is a big difference between knowing something and practicing something. There is a big difference between knowing about God, and knowing God, on a personal level. And additionally, most Christians who leave the faith are not well-versed in apologetics, which is the “discipline of defending a religious position.” I will argue that there are two types of people who leave Christianity – those who were “Christians” in word only – as a show of “holiness” – and those who didn’t truly understand it and allowed falsehoods and misconceptions to take the place of their true understanding of Christianity.
———-
So your argument is, “If the Bible is not the direct word of God, then atheists can’t be deluded” right? Atheists may dismiss the Bible as the direct word of God, that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean that atheists cannot be deluded. Why can atheists call Christians deluded, but the shoe never fits on the other foot? (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/atheists-top-10-signs-you-are-a-deluded-christian) In fact, I am the opposite of all of these 10 signs posted on this blog, and my Christian faith is much stronger now than when I was a stereotypical “deluded Christian.” And there are plenty of atheists who would fall under this definition of “deluded,” yet they will insist that they are not. What makes the atheist delusion-proof?
———-
I truly appreciate your comment here. You have a strong intellect and good reasoning skills (maybe better than mine I’m afraid). I would encourage you to continue seeking the truth, but don’t let your own brain get in the way of truth. Use it, but don’t let it consume you.
Hi Art, thanks for the reply. Here’s a bit more food for thought as well as my answers to some of the questions you posed.
A: In response to your first question – just because God “knows” doesn’t mean God will place each person into a position in which they are guaranteed to do what he wants (i.e. believe in him).
DW: But *why* wouldn’t He? You are basically telling me that God can create a person and place them in a position where they will never believe in a god KNOWING that because of their predisposition (how He created them), their upbringing, surroundings, (where He placed them in their life station), plus the sum of their life experiences, that in the end, they can’t ever believe in Him?
If we assume that God is indeed a creator god, then He is not omnipotent and can’t do exactly what he wants, OR He is not omniscient and doesn’t know what will become of the individuals He creates, OR He is not omnibenevolent and doesn’t care that some of those that he creates will never believe in him. If even one of those ideas were true, then that goes against most Christian ideas of their god, so to me, there appears to be a disconnect between what God supposedly is, and what God supposedly does.
For example, if a single atheist (or even any non-Christian) has died over the course of humanity’s existence (and I would guess that at least one in that time period has indeed died), then taking into account God’s supposed infinite knowledge—which includes the knowledge of the future—He created that person knowing that they would die without ever believing in Him, the one, true god. Because there are generally negative consequences associated with not believing in the Christian god (that range from an eternity in Hell to never knowing the feeling of God’s love depending on the particular flavor of the denomination), then God may have simply created that person to stock the pits of Hell? Why not tweak their soul/character at creation to be more receptive to belief or put them in an environment where belief would be guaranteed? If preventable, why would you let anyone you love, suffer?
A: In response to your second question. The Bible is not ambiguous.
DW: I think that we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. If you look at the amount of denominations of Christianity, you’ll find a multitude of different viewpoints (that at times even contradict one another) all citing the Bible as the source for their beliefs.
A: For example. “He was late to class. For this reason, the teacher marked him absent.” The teacher in this case is not the instigator – just as God, in the verse I mentioned, is not the instigator. The reason precedes the action that is a result and begins the sentence with, “For this reason…”
DW: But if the teacher created a robot that only followed predetermined protocols that the teacher knew intimately, why would the teacher fault the robot for being tardy when the teacher would already know this outcome and actually designed the robot with this outcome in mind? Wouldn’t the teacher be the instigator of the robot’s behavior if she is the creator? (Obviously, people aren’t robots, I’m just trying to stress the point I made earlier concerning the creator with omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.)
A: So your argument is, “If the Bible is not the direct word of God, then atheists can’t be deluded” right?
DW: No, I wasn’t making an argument. I was simply pointing out the structure of your implied argument and a premise that I saw as being easily dismissed by non-Christians.
A: Atheists may dismiss the Bible as the direct word of God, that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean that atheists cannot be deluded.
DW: Atheists are people too, and so they can suffer from the same reasoning errors as the rest of humanity. They can delude themselves into believing that a new car is what they need to be happy, or into believing that there are no problems in their marriage, or that their kids are smart and their spouse is beautiful. However, because of the lack of evidence regarding the existence of a god and the (currently) untestable hypotheses posited by theists, I don’t feel they are deluded when it comes to matter concerning their lack of faith. There is no evidence for A, therefore, I don’t believe A. You wouldn’t call someone deluded if they told you they didn’t believe in dragons, would you? There is simply no evidence that supports the existence of dragons; therefore, it is simply reasonable to not believe in the existence of dragons.
But back to the question of God’s existence, Christians might not accept the premise that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. That’s fine, but they have to acknowledge that it isn’t the same type of evidence used in scientific communities. That might not seem like a big difference, but it definitely is to me (and probably most other agnostic/atheists). For example, oxygen is an odorless, tasteless gas, yet we would never say it didn’t exist. Even if we were unable to see it, touch it, breathe it, or otherwise directly experience it, we can design experiments that could test for its presence, or isolate and observe it with special instruments, etc. In the case of God, there is nothing like that, so it is simply a matter of faith, and that just isn’t an easy leap for some of us.
I could see how atheists and agnostics could view the evidence that you presented in a different light, but I won’t go too in depth (unless that’s what you want). I will, however, touch briefly on your “Converted Atheists,” “Christian Apologetics,” and “Biographies related to prayer” sections because I believe they all share the same theme.
Let me begin with some rhetorical questions. Do you think I could find similar accounts of famous people or great minds turning *away* from Christianity? Or people doing great things in the name of a different god (or even simply for their own self-interests)? If I did, would it matter at all to you? I imagine it would mean about as much to you as great minds and famous people turning to Christianity matter to atheists/agnostics because you would recognize it for what is it: a logical fallacy.
Let’s say that if the 10 smartest, most influential people on this planet told you that despite everything you had learned up to this point in your life, the earth was actually flat and was completely made up of sugar, then perhaps you might be tempted to believe them. However, at the end of the day, unless they have supported their bold claims with proportional levels of evidence, it would still be a logical fallacy, specifically an argument from authority, and even a million great minds simply saying that something is true, does not actually make it so.
Again, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. You express yourself well and I do not get the feeling that you are opposed to hearing different points of view.