On Atheism

My husband recently passed along the link to a blog post, and suggested it might be an interesting post for me to reply to on my blog. It’s written by a guy Chris knew in high school who is an atheist.

First off, I have to confess. I don’t think atheists are bad or even stupid people. And it ticks me off when Christians try to paint them as such. I believe strongly in the quote I first heard in the intro to the DC Talk song “What If I Stumble,” which is, “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today are Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyles, that is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” Put more simply, “Dear Christians who try to attack others who don’t believe as you do, or who point out the hypocrisy that is too present in our lives—it’s doing more harm than good.”

That being said, I believe strongly in my beliefs (though I don’t feel like someone questioning my beliefs is dangerous to me) and I’m always interested to learn how others see us and what questions, disagreements and affirmations there are. 

Long story short, if you want me to rip this guy or any atheist a new one, wrong blog. Wrong pastor. Wrong person.

PROVING A NEGATIVE

Yeah, none of us can be arrogant here. The same arguments used to “prove” Christianity or any faith can be used to disprove it. Actually, trying to prove faith is kind of silly. I can assert (and maybe even prove) a great deal. But there is a necessary step of faith (I don’t call it a leap because I think there’s a lot of foundation needed to make it). But to think one can simply lay out a set of beliefs and assume the hearer or reader will assent is just silly.

PERFECT IMPERFECTION

Indeed. It would be incorrect to say that God “needs” us, or that God was imperfect before humanity. Many Christian theologians prefer instead to talk about basically God had things so good God wanted to have being experience joy and relationship, etc., all the things God does. “A perfect god who creates anything is not perfect.” I disagree. Would you suggest, then, that a couple in perfect love (if such was attainable) would be necessarily denigrating their love for one another were they to have children? I don’t personally think so. In fact, love at its best seeks more. Love is by its nature that which goes beyond. Perfection that is stagnant is something other than perfect. True perfection, I believe, needs greater and greater growth. Now, you’ll say, that implies the first perfection was less than complete. I think we’re dealing with a slightly different idea of perfection. Perfection as a constant, continuing state, and perfection as a terminal state.

HIGHER WAYS

I suspect that Al would not want the case of Atheism to be seen by all based on the thoughts of the simplest cases, I wish he also would not criticize the simplest, least developed views of Christianity.  He quotes the line, “his ways are higher” as “imbecilic.” Well yeah, sometimes that’s a pretty stupid response to life. And it seems to refer to a rather callous God who is more of a puppetmaster (albeit following some divine script). Some Christians believe God works in this way, some do not. I don’t personally believe God sits around prescribing all events. I believe that somehow  (and no, I can’t explain how perfectly) we have meaningful choices that lead to meaningful outcomes (sometimes consequences, sometimes ones that others suffer because of our decisions).

I don’t know why we have meaningful choices—but I believe that we do. I don’t believe God HAD to give us meaningful choices, but that God chose to. Well, perhaps this gets back to the statement Al is so upset with, but I believe I am getting back to it at least in a somewhat different sense.

Let me explain my understanding of Sin (which, I believe, is in line with the early church fathers). Sin is a focus on self. Augustine talked about being curved in on one’s self. Therefore, the intention was for us to orient our lives to God. Adam and Eve chose to curve in on one’s self. And that has become so much a part of who we are that we can’t break the habit without some outside help. That, I believe, comes through Jesus Christ. Do I think it would all have been simpler if God had just controlled our choices from the beginning and made us focus on self? Maybe. But life would be a lot less interesting, and then I’d really wonder what the point of it all would have been.

ABRAHAM, I NEED A FAVOR

Yeah, the problem here is that Al is reflecting on just one strand of Christian theology, and a fairly modern one at that. I’m highly persuaded by people like C.S. Lewis (himself a long time atheist) and his book The Great Divorce. I would suggest his book not only presents a different view of heaven, hell, etc. is than Al is referring to, but also a view that more Christians than not actually hold. Scripture doesn’t prescribe damnation nearly as much as some Christians like to believe, and I believe that while we do have meangful choices to make and that salvation (i.e. reconciliation with God) is possible only through Jesus, I think God is able to make that happen in some interesting ways, and certainly outside the cliché timelines and prayers some think hold the exclusive key to the kingdom.

SO IT IS WRITTEN

Yeah, the first paragraph is also a refutation of an argument that is unnecessary if you don’t go along with the version of Christianity Al seems to take issue with. I agree it would be entirely ridiculous for God is penalize those who haven’t heard of God (and don’t get me started on predestination and that that means for people not having any choice even if they have). I’m not really sure what source other than written pieces would be better suited to share the story of God’s work in the lives of humanity. But is it necessarily limited? Sure. And the suggestion that simply reading the Bible anyway is how some comes to belief is too simple, and really very rarely the case. Sometimes. But those times are noteworthy because of their rarity.

Okay, I’ll be the first to attest to the horrible consequences of missionaries. Believe me, I usually am. It often annoys people. But they also did a ton of good, and that even without including the whole, “telling people about Jesus,” thing. It’s naïve to blame religion—any religion—for the base human reasons for arrogance, murder, greed and just generally being horrible people. That religious people are these things is unfortunately true. But their religions reject them. And just because all the people at one point in history thought religion justified a thing (take, for example, slavery) doesn’t mean that religion actually DOES—these are the cases where followers in the future have to admit their forbearers were wrong. It must be nice to proclaim no shared ideoglogy and have to bear responsibility for no one’s faults’ but your own. I don’t have that luxury. My only hope is to move forward and deal with the past (believe me, I do this, sometimes that stuff a Christian said to someone else a week ago) and to leave things better for those who will follow me. I don’t always do well. And sometimes I make things worse. But I try. Certainly there needs to be a balanced view of missionaries. But to broadly paint them as evil is as naïve and uninformed as to paint them uniformly as heroes.

I, and many if not most Christians, do not believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe it contains all things necessary unto salvation. I do not believe, for example, that the sun stood still—this is based on a very different view of how planets operate than we now believe to be true. But I think scripture was trying to make a point there about a day that seemed like it was never going to end. I don’t believe that detail is necessary for me to believe unto salvation. I am very cautious about people who think the Bible is inerrant. In most cases, they just don’t have a well developed theology or understanding of scripture and think it has to be inerrant or none of it is true. That’s immature, but it’s where most people are.

I get why we like simplicity. Black and white. It’s simple. Seems easy. Lots of people want life to be easier. I’d like that too. The problem is life isn’t simple, and no view of God (or the absence of God) is, actually, simple. It bears with it challenges, assumptions, rejections and complexities. I distrust ANYONE who presents their view arrogantly or as the obvious answer. I particularly take issue with Christian who do so, since I think if I have any basis upon which to criticize anyone, it’s them. But it seems to me that Al is arguing in the same way.

I SECOND THAT EMOTION

Emotion is a response to something previously unknown. Really? What is unknown to me each time I feel love for my husband. Did I forget I loved him? I don’t get Al’s argument here, so I’m not sure how to respond.

I believe that God is with us all the time, and cares about us, loves us in fact, but the simplistic humanized God that Al is attacking especially in this last section is not the God I worship. My God is not a middle school boy who giggles when someone talks about sex. God is not a wise old guy with a long beard sitting up on a throne somewhere. I’ll join Al if that’s the kind of God he rejects. But to arrogantly and immaturely discount my belief (doing just what he’s upset some Christians do about Atheists) then it’s hard to take him seriously.

Al writes, “Humans are more than capable of moral behavior, altruistic actions, inner peace and happiness on our own.” I disagree. But how am I to prove a negative? I see it all over, that’s the best I can do. I don’t think it’s a statement to be argued but experienced. I just don’t have such high regard for humans.

All in all, Al’s arguments are hardly new, and certainly not the best case for Atheism (though I agree it’s hardly something one can make a case FOR). It’s by definitely NOT all the other stuff. I do think, though, that I could make a better, more informed and nuanced refutation of Christianity myself. I just don’t happen to believe it would be true.

I can’t control the crazy, undeveloped theology of some other Christian groups. Heck, they might be right. Al might be right. I don’t believe they are, for many, many reasons, but it would be arrogant to say otherwise, and to need to justify myself without admitting possibility that I’m wrong would be, I believe, sinful. I’m not God, so I have to admit there’s a lot I don’t know, don’t understand, and can’t explain.

A little while ago, Chris and I watched a documentary called Religulous. It’s pretty awesome, you should check it out. It’s made by Bill Maher, who if I remember, was raised in a religious home but is now an atheist. At one point he says he just takes issue with anyone who’s so SURE. I concur. I mean, I think there’s a difference between arrogance (or naivite) and sure, but I get, I thin, what he’s saying and I agree. And I apply that same lens to everyone. Christian, Atheist, Muslim, etc.