ATHEIST FAITH, 2

Logical Fallacies?

I’m replying to the first two sets of comments left by my friend Canadian Atheist on my previous post.

I apologize for not replying sooner, but I was busy and before I knew it there were six more comments as you and Gary sparred with each other.  (I’ll not get into those.)  So I decided to give it a fresh start with a new post.  I’ll try to go through and comment paragraph by paragraph as you have done.

I wrote:  “He believes, or has faith that that Creator exists.  In fact, to many, perhaps most people on this earth, God’s (or a god’s) existence is not questioned.”

You responded:   “Are you appealing to a logical fallacy here, my friend?  Just because many people believe something, doesn't make it true.  The religious had us believing the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe for a long time.  Turns out it wasn't true.”
            My reply:  “No, I’m not appealing to a logical fallacy here, my friend.  I was merely making an assertion.  You may disagree with my premise, if you wish, but please don’t label it as a logical fallacy.  In fact, it appears to me that you are the one appealing to a logical fallacy – a red herring:  all that about religious beliefs about a flat earth have nothing to do with my assertion.  (Dictionary of Philosophy defines ‘the fallacy of red herring’ as ‘ignoring a criticism of an argument by changing attention to another subject’)”

I wrote:  “The Atheist sees the same evidence, but for some reasons dismisses the possibility of a Creator.”

You responded:  “Not entirely true but a common mistake.  There are different sorts of atheists.  I'd probably be labeled (jeez I hate labels LOL) as an atheist agnostic.  I don't dismiss the possibility of a creator, I just see no evidence of one and even if I did, that wouldn't make your God more plausible than the thousands of other Gods out there.  In fact, I find the Christian God highly, highly implausible.

My reply:  “I am glad that you don’t dismiss the possibility of a creator.  This is quite a concession on your part.  However, when you label yourself an atheist agnostic you seem to be combining contradictory terms.  My Webster’s defines Atheist as ‘one who believes there is no deity’ and Agnostic as ‘a person who holds the view that ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly:  one who is not committed to believing in either the existence  or nonexistence  of God or a god.’  You can’t have it both ways.  Of course, ‘atheist agnostic’ may be part of some esoteric jargon with which I am unfamiliar.  And again you introduce a red herring when you argue about ‘the Christian God.’  I said nothing in this paragraph about Him.  By the way, who is this Jeez to whom you refer?”

I wrote:  “And yet the Atheist gets quite indignant when this matter is called to his attention. He insists that this is not so.”

You responded:  “Not really.  But the reason it may seem so sometimes when you encounter an atheist is because religious people are always trying to label us as religious when that just isn't true.  It's kind of like when they try to brand us as immoral - after a while it gets annoying to refute.”

My reply:  “Another red herring.  I did not accuse you of being either ‘religious’ or ‘immoral.’  I asserted that you have ‘faith’ or ‘belief.’  Even Webster’s defines Atheism as ‘belief’ (see above).

I wrote:  “I suspect that my friend assumes an even further definition describes Christian faith.  It’s the one allegedly given by the little boy in Sunday school that ‘faith is when you believe something even when you know it’s not true.’”

            You responded:  “No. I think many religious people believe wholeheartedly in their doctrine.”

I wrote:  “However, as a Christian I would hold to Webster’s definition #2b(2) ‘complete trust’ and #3 ‘something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp.:  a system of religious beliefs.’  From my communications with my friend, I’d say that this describes not only my, but his faith as well.”

           You responded:  “Not really.  I have no religious beliefs.”

My reply:  “I beg to differ.  You do have a faith, a set of beliefs which you hold, as does everyone.  Your writings show this clearly.  You make assertions, many of them, quite dogmatically.  You even reference sources for your belief – ‘actual science,’ ‘DNA,’ ‘fossils,’ etc.  You put your confidence (or trust) in these sources.

And while I don’t want to offend you by labeling you as religious, you do have religious beliefs – beliefs about God and His existence."

I wrote:  “He and I both base our understanding on assertions which are supposedly factual.  We interpret the data and rely on these for our world view.  Faith or belief is required throughout the entire process.  We trust or believe in some assertions which we believe are backed by evidence.  ‘We refer to these as “facts.’  He does this as well as I.  Sadly we all are often tempted to ignore some facts, those which do not fit easily into our world view.”

            You responded:  “Sort of but not really.  Your source of truth is the Bible.  While I don't deny there are some truths within the Bible’s pages, I don't see them as uniquely Christian and a great deal of it has been debunked by actual science.  For example, DNA and fossils show us we didn't just pop into existence in the Garden of Eden.  We know you need more than two people to have enough DNA diversity to keep a species alive.  There are many, many more, but that's just one.”

            My reply:  “You simply dismiss my epistemological observations with a ‘sort of but not really’?  Do you agree or disagree?  Your arguments about the Bible and ‘actual science’ seem to be just another red herring.”

I wrote:  “To hold this view he chooses to ignore the early manuscript evidence for the New Testament, as well as three centuries of Christian history and writings.  I’ll insist that this is a matter of faith on his part, and it appears to be more like Webster’s definition #2b(1) or even like that of the little boy mentioned above.”
            You responded:  “Even if I conceded that you were correct about Constantine, there is no denying that the Bible is cobbled together from books by different authors at different times and that there is a very high chance none were direct witnesses to what they describe. The book seems to me obviously a work of man.”
            My reply:  “No one has, to my knowledge, denied that the Bible was written ‘by different authors at different times’ (though I wouldn’t use the word ‘cobbled’).  I do not know the source of your claim about the probability of the authors not being witnesses to what they describe, but obviously it is someone whom you believe.  These appear to be dogmatic assertions with little evidence.”

I wrote:  “Also contrary to my friend’s thinking, Christian faith is based on facts:  the eyewitness’ reports, the works and claims of Jesus, the empty tomb.  My friend may deny the factuality of these evidences, but they are strongly attested.  To deny their factuality requires faith on his part.”
            You responded:  “No, not really.  There's no proof that there were witnesses and you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.  That's a logical fallacy.  I think it's probable that Jesus lived but I don't believe he was the son of God, sent here to scapegoat himself for humanity.  I don't believe in the miracles or many of the bad moral teachings described in the Bible.  I think we're outgrowing it and finally admitting that it's a flawed book that gives us some insight into ancient man.  However, it's the work of man, not God.”
            My reply:  “There you go with your claims about a ‘logical fallacy.’  What logical fallacy are you referring to?  Are you claiming that this is circular reasoning?  But if the Bible is made of books by different authors (as you and I both agree), they why wouldn’t the fact of multiple authorship be acceptable as evidence?  It would seem that a multiplicity of eyewitnesses would verify the truthfulness of the claims.”

I wrote:  “The ‘facts versus faith’ argument may appear to be a good way for the Atheist to protect his belief system but it works both ways.”
            You responded:  “Atheism isn't a belief system.”
            My reply:  “This is a dogmatic assertion made against the evidence.  You have beliefs on which you base your worldview.  That’s a belief system!  Why are you afraid to admit it?  I suspect that one reason for your insistence is that one can find comfort in the belief that he doesn’t need to believe, while those with whom he disagrees have a need for belief.
            And this is your great logical fallacy, which I was addressing on my previous post:  the False Dilemma between Faith and Facts.”

I wrote:  “I do not want to sound insulting to my friend. I genuinely desire for him to open his mind up to consider the inconsistencies of his own position as well as the assertions of Christianity.”
            You responded:  “I'm certainly not offended.  I enjoyed reading your post a great deal.  In fact, I enjoy reading all of your posts.”

      My reply:  “Thanks.  I hope we can continue to dialog.  And thank you for supplying me with enough red herrings to start a fish farm!  :^)

ATHEIST FAITH

The Christian, as well as other Theists, sees the evidence of design all around him and recognizes the work of a Creator.  He believes, or has faith that that Creator exists.  In fact, to many, perhaps most people on this earth, God’s (or a god’s) existence is not questioned.

The Atheist sees the same evidence, but for some reasons dismisses the possibility of a Creator.  He doesn’t simply question the possibility; he believes that God does not exist.  This seems to me a strong faith commitment, as strong as that of the Theist.  And yet the Atheist gets quite indignant when this matter is called to his attention.  He insists that this is not so.

My dictionary (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11^th ed.) gives many definitions for the word faith.

My Atheist friend insists that he does not have faith, while it appears quite clear to me that he does.  Perhaps part of the reason for our disagreement is caused by the fact that he uses one narrow definition of the word, Webster’s #2b(1) “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”  His insistence then would make sense (to him).  He apparently assumes that this definition describes Christian faith, and is the one which is held by Christians and other Theists.

I suspect that my friend assumes an even further definition describes Christian faith.  It’s the one allegedly given by the little boy in Sunday school that “faith is when you believe something even when you know it’s not true.”

However, as a Christian I would hold to Webster’s definition #2b(2) “complete trust,” and #3 “something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp.:  a system of religious beliefs.”  From my communications with my friend, I’d say that this describes not only my, but his faith as well.

So, it is not, as my friend appears to believe, simply a matter of facts versus faith.  He and I both base our understanding on assertions which are supposedly factual.  We interpret the data and rely on these for our world view.  Faith or belief is required throughout the entire process.  We trust or believe in some assertions which we believe are backed by evidence.  *We refer to these as “facts.”  He does this as well as I.  Sadly, we all are often tempted to ignore some facts, those which do not fit easily into our world view.

For instance, my friend, along with other Atheists insists on what I would term “The Constantine Myth,” the view that the 4^th Century Roman Emperor Constantine was the originator of Christianity and of the New Testament as we know it.  (See:  THE WORDAND THE WORD.)  To hold this view he chooses to ignore the early manuscript evidence for the New Testament, as well as three centuries of Christian history and writings.  I’ll insist that this is a matter of faith on his part, and it appears to be more like Webster’s definition #2b(1) or even like that of the little boy mentioned above.

Also contrary to my friend’s thinking, Christian faith is based on facts:  the eyewitness’ reports, the works and claims of Jesus, the empty tomb.  My friend may deny the factuality of these evidences, but they are strongly attested.  To deny their factuality requires faith on his part.

The “facts versus faith” argument may appear to be a good way for the Atheist to protect his belief system but it works both ways.

I do not want to sound insulting to my friend.  I genuinely desire for him to open his mind up to consider the inconsistencies of his own position as well as the assertions of Christianity.

GRACE, VIII

Showing Grace

I confess that I don’t listen to many radio or TV preachers, and I don’t read many books by preachers.  There are many good preachers who teach the Bible clearly and present the gospel clearly.  But so much of what is preached seems to be lacking in grace.

There are tirades against, and handwringing about the sins of America.  There are predictions of coming judgment.  And there are also calls to follow Jesus.  But little of grace is heard.  We don’t hear much about God’s grace, and we don’t hear any grace demonstrated by those who preach.  And our politicians are sounding more and more just like those graceless preachers.

In a previous post (GRACE II, the Grace ofGod), I defined God’s grace as “The expression of God’s love without condition toward those who do not merit it.”  Also that grace is a “communicable attribute of God” – that is “a characteristic of God that is also found in human beings.”  Then I noted “He apparently expects it of us.”

We don’t usually think of God’s grace in this way.  We like to think on His grace in saving us, of His grace that we experience daily, even of His grace in our suffering.  But to think of it as something that He expects of us is to me and I suspect, to many others, a bit troubling.

But if grace is as defined above, and if we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, and one another as Christ loved us, then we have to see grace also as “the expression of our love without condition toward those who do not merit it.”

And this is the way that both Peter and Paul use it a few times.  They tell us how we need to demonstrate grace in our relationships, whether with our fellow believers or with unbelievers, or even with oppressive masters.  It is to be demonstrated in our speech as well as in our actions.

As often, however, we find that the ideas that these writers attempt to communicate are found first in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels.  Of course, Jesus is the embodiment of grace, and as He walked this earth, He was the example of grace.  He exemplified grace in His actions and even in His speech.  As Luke records of those who were listening to His sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth:

“And all were testifying to Him and were marveling at the gracious words (literally “words of grace”) coming out of His mouth …” (Luke 4:22).

Jesus doesn’t use the word “grace” very often, but He uses it three times as seen in Luke’s record of the Sermon on the Mount:

“And if you love those who love you, what grace is it?  For even the sinners love those who love them.  And if you do good to those who do good to you, what grace is it?  Even the sinners do the same thing.  And if you lend to those from who you hope to receive, what grace is it?  Even sinners lend to sinners, in order to receive the same.

However, you are to love your enemies and do good and lend, expecting nothing back, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful (literally “graceless”) and evil” (Luke 6:32-34).

I translated the Greek word charis as “grace,” which is its usual meaning.  Most English versions translate it as “credit” or “thanks” with the understanding of Jesus’ question as meaning  “what favor or credit do these actions gain with God?”

This is, of course, a legitimate translation, but I suspect (can’t be dogmatic) that Jesus is not speaking here of God’s grace, but that of His hearers.  He’s asking “If you love only those who love you, how does this show grace on your part?”

If we do loving acts toward those who reciprocate, we are exercising love but not grace.  My love for my wife is powerful but it isn’t grace.  Of course, when I fail to reciprocate, when I return her love by being a jerk and she still acts in love toward me, she is exercising grace.

Jesus tells us that when we love our enemies, those who wish to do us harm, or who actually do us harm, we are demonstrating that we are God’s children.  We are showing grace.

And this grace should characterize our relationships with our fellow believers as well.  There are those weaker brothers and sisters who need building up.  As Paul says:

“No nasty word should come out of your mouth, but only what’s good for building up of the one in need, in order that it might give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).

Peter tells us that even when suffering we are to exercise grace toward those who abuse their authority over us:

“You house-servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the crooked.  For this is grace if for the sake of conscience toward God, one bears up under grief when suffering unjustly.  For what credit is it if you endure when you are beaten for sinning?  But if you endure when you suffer for doing good, this is grace with God” (1 Peter 2:18-20).

And Paul tells us that our conversation with those who do not know Christ is also to be characterized by grace.

“Walk in wisdom toward those outside, redeeming the time, your speech always with grace, seasoned with salt, so that you know how to give an answer to every one” (Colossians 4:5, 6).

I believe that our conversation with unbelievers is to show grace in two ways.  We are, of course, to be able to clearly tell them of God’s grace that He has demonstrated toward them in the sacrifice of His Son.  But this message is to be conveyed with grace on our part.  There should be no place in our relationships for a critical or judgmental spirit.  If we do not demonstrate grace toward others, how can we expect them to desire the grace of God?