This post would probably be more aptly titled “Why we ought to talk to atheists according to methods prescribed in Part 1“. But I I like parallel structure, so it’s part 2. Take this one with a grain of salt because it has considerably less biblical support than part 1 and leans heavily upon my own experience and understanding of the world. In fact, you may even read this and dismiss me as some young punk “emergent” because you’ve heard similar thoughts elsewhere and you like categories. I generally deny that label, but then again, that only enhances your suspicion. You’re tricky, you. Well, having said all that, perhaps you will need more salt that just that one grain.
A friend of mine recently told me about a spiritual conversation he had with one of his atheist friends (let’s call him Stuart). Stuart had chosen an atheist worldview upon reading what according to my friend was a poorly-written article about a tragedy that befalls an innocent little girl. The article concluded that a perfectly sovereign, loving God could not have allowed such a thing to happen. In this conversation about spirituality, Stuart entered into a theological debate of sorts with my friend, mentioning nothing of the article, but rather challenging the hypostatic union. But of course.
In a similar vein, Bart Ehrman’s wildly popular recent work Jesus, Interrupted challenges orthodox Christian faith based on what he considers biblical contradictions. Yet Ehrman provocatively ends the book with a confession that none of these issues actually caused him to leave the faith, and that many respectable biblical scholars maintain a strong personal faith in light of their knowledge of these textual difficulties. For him, like Stuart, the actual deal-breaker was the Problem of Evil.
Donald Miller comments on this tendency among atheists in his teaching “The Nature and Meaning of Love”, where he describes that the dominant religious assumption among students during his ministry at Reed College was “God doesn’t exist”, but the dominant question was “Does God love me?”. He explains that this absurd dichotomy doesn’t surprise him because when he feels unloved by someone, his first tendency is discredit that person’s authority. So if someone has reason to believe that God doesn’t love them, it would make perfect sense to retaliate by calling him evil or weak, the two accusations underlying the Problem of Evil. While I don’t think this retaliation theory explains the origins of atheism completely, I think he’s on to something. Because I have that same tendency. And the students I run into at U of M also seem to have a quiet but strong emotional underbelly to their cool reasoning on religious philosophy.
I observe this pattern of deep emotional conviction masquerading as rational argumentation in nearly every spiritual conversation I have with skeptics. I don’t think this masquerade is dishonest or even done on purpose, but nobody wants to defend a theological worldview of theirs from an emotional or experiential standpoint. That was so pre-Enlightenment. Intellectual debate, for whatever reason, is much more respectable, regardless of how dishonest to the core of the matter it is. Why else would Bart Ehrman spend 99% of his book avoiding the real issue? My personal observation in this area has led me to this conviction: Practically no one (including the Atheist) adopts their worldview primarily on intellectual grounds. A pure intellectual (think Vulcan) does not hear a sad story about an innocent girl who suffers tragedy and conclude there must not be a God. I think the perfectly rational person, for all the difficulties of the scenario, must simultaneously acknowledge the challenge of everyday goodness and beauty that seem to transcend physicality, what Chesterton called “The Problem of Good”. Much like the scenario of the little girl, questions like “Why is a sunset beautiful?”, “Why do humans experience romance?”, and “Why is music enjoyable?” are hard to dismiss with trite answers.
I believe that skeptics, like the rest of humanity, enter into their belief system because they deeply sense something is true. Like many Christians, they may justify themselves on rational grounds, but no one just sits down one day with pen and pad to establish a religious philosophy without emotional provocation. Humans just aren’t wired that way. I believe the person who reads the story about the little girl and concludes there is no God does so because in that moment he sees very clearly the evil in the world, but for whatever reason, is simultaneously incapable of deeply considering the beauty and goodness that war against it. His conclusion is not objective; he does not see in whole. He brings an emotional context to the little girl’s story that makes perfect sense of his conclusion.
This is why asking questions (#3 from part 1) is so important. Perhaps he has never experienced love in a form true enough to challenge the apparent evil of the little girl’s story (and his entire life).I’m actually having considerable trouble coming up with another option. I think that’s it. David Crowder, in his song “Rescue is Coming”, sings “There’s nothing wrong with love. I think it’s just enough to believe.” I resonate with that. I think the person who grows up deeply rooted in love has a lot of trouble seeing the girl’s story through a godless lens. There is just too much in contrast. Thus, we would do well to take the time to understand how they arrived where they are. The Gospel speaks more to their life story than our apologetic speaks to their reason.
I would hate for you to pick up and go believing that Atheists are the really confused ones, and now it’s our job to convince them of how little they see. You’re pretty confused, too. That’s why you’ve been arguing with them. I’ll leave the rest of that discussion for part 3…because you also need a whole blog post.
Mike: keep up the good thinking and good writing. It is read, and it is good (in my opinion). I agree with most of your experiences on this and they line up with many of my experiences too.
Keep living for Him alone sir!
Do you have any thoughts on how to respond to an Atheist who has taken the belief system to its logical conclusion–meaninglessness, lack of any real morality, etc? Every now and then you come across an Atheist who recognizes that they can’t even judge Hitler, because that would be imposing an objective moral system. I’m oversimplifying, but…
I don’t think it’s quite right to say that no one’s worldview, or various positions on big issues, is held on “primarily intellectual grounds.” First it’s unclear what you mean by intellectual. Plenty of “irrational” grounds can be construed as rational grounds – for example it’s basically rational for the five year old to believe what his mother says about mathematics. So although a “conversion” moment, for an atheist or theist, might have only quasi-rational features (say, intense perception of pointless evil, or religious experience), surely in general these are the sorts of reasons rational people change their minds. Furthermore, people like Ehrman and the millions atheists you generalize about, still do rationally inquire after their worldviews, no matter their origins. In other words, even though experience X may have gotten their beliefs going, it wasn’t the end. Surely a 40 year old atheist has better reasons than a 9 year old atheist. And so on.
Meghan,
I’ve come across a few hardened moral nihilists in my day. In many of those cases, it seems the best thing to do is to simply listen to their beliefs and then share yours and go on loving them as best you can. It’s unlikely that any intellectual discussion will move them to come to Christ.
Good thoughts here, Mikey. I agree mostly, though I still think I’ll ponder what the biblical worldview has for us in terms of responding to modern day atheists. I do agree (and as I stated above) that intellectual discussions rarely, if ever, move people to come to Christ. However, there may be room for such a discussion to chip away at belief systems.
I forgot who said it but it goes something like, “a little philosophy will turn you away from God, and a lot will bring you back”. I’m unsure of the truth of the statement, but there is some lurking. It seems many young atheists form worldviews based on incomplete philosophies, or some atheological argument to which they do not know the rebuttal. It may be helpful to address these types of atheists with the counter arguments to their objections for a belief in God. Not unlike what we were doing the other week at our Gospel meeting.
I was once on the brink of agnosticism and someone in my life was able to shoot down some poor arguments I was believing, which later paved the way for me to come to Christ. I see intellectualism as a giant wall around someone’s heart, and we can fight fire with fire sometimes by answering their objections about God. In doing so, we may be able to chip away at their intellectual wall and soften their heart.
However, without a moving personal experience, the chips are probably meaningless. And like you said, we ought to be careful not to argue, and to choose our words carefully to show humility and gentleness. I haven’t fully articulated these thoughts in my mind, and I’m glad you made a post about it.
Keep it rollin, Mike.
Sorry for the wall of text. It apparently doesn’t like when I tab and enter for new paragraphs!
Great discussion, guys!! Keep it going, for sure.
Josh: I agree with what you’re saying. And notice I didn’t say that nobody holds their beliefs on primarily intellectual grounds, but rather nobody adopts them that way. You could argue that they retain them on rational grounds because that’s how they argue.
Also, I agree with your point about “irrational” reasons being quite rational. Notice, at the end I said that someone’s emotional context makes perfect sense of their response to the story. Hence their emotions-based response or adoption is entirely “rational”.
Meghan, you know some very honest atheists. I imagine you’ve asked your fair share of questions regarding the origins of their beliefs. I hope/imagine the answers have been enlightening.
Ben, I agree with your points and considered including them here. I think it’s important to defend the faith and know basic apologetics. It’s necessary to have a faith that’s at least somewhat reasonable. But I think the best a great apologetic can do is eliminate an intellectual hurdle, i.e. create space for consideration; I have never seen it produce faith.
Is there a quoting feature?
“But I think the best a great apologetic can do is eliminate an intellectual hurdle, i.e. create space for consideration; I have never seen it produce faith.”
I agree Mikey. I think we are on the same page here.