Christian vs. atheist, summary and conclusion

June 22, 4:44 PMMethodist ExaminerJames-Michael Smith

Previous Next

23 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Methodist Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Who would've guessed Jesus and Darwin where really Irish soccer hooligans??

Here is a summary of the main points of the current debate between National Methodist Examiner, James-Michael Smith, and LA Atheism Examiner, Hugh Kramer. Each summary section is linked to the article where it originally appeared.  For a fuller grasp of the debate once can click on the articles in the order below.

For Hugh's concluding remarks, click here.  JM's concluding remarks follow at the end of the recap:

The Theist Position (JM's)

Why JM rejects atheism as valid:
* Atheism denies that there is a creator, designer or originator of the universe that is apart from the universe.  This means that the origin of the universe must be explained from within—something that is much less plausible than that it was created by something greater.

* Atheism denies that humanity has any intrinsic teleological purpose.  Atheism states that have no ultimate purpose—just whatever ‘purpose’ we choose to believe we have. 

* Atheism logically denies an ultimate, objective source of Justice and Morality.  Justice and Morality in an atheistic world logically must be subjective.  Of course atheists often have a keen sense of Justice and Morality—many times trumping even those who adhere to various religions!  However, I believe this is a case of atheists living better than their worldview. 

* Atheism cannot plausibly explain the near-universal innate tendency toward belief in a god, God, gods, etc. among humanity.  Many evolutionary and anthropological arguments for the existence of religion have been offered…but they fall apart once actual religious belief among humanity’s various religious worldviews is looked at in greater detail.

Hugh’s critique of JM:
* [Hugh quoted a comment by a fellow atheist which attempts to summarize and critique the Kalam Cosmological argument]

* “[JM] says that we should "stop trying to embrace (an) intrinsic (or maybe he meant "intrinsically"), objective purpose to life," follow our worldview to its logical conclusion and admit our nihilism. While it's true that atheists aren't big on "ultimates" and absolutes when it comes to the meaning of life, etc., it doesn't mean that our only other choice is to think that nothing has any meaning. Like most human beings, we're quite capable of providing our own meanings to life.”

JM’s rebuttal to Hugh’s critique:
* [JM provided links to a number of articles correcting Hugh's quote and expanding upon the Kalam argument.]

* "The moment you declare that life really does have a meaning or purpose beyond whatever personal meaning you make up for it in your own life you immediately negate your claim… within an atheistic worldview, any such meaning is nothing more than sentimental decoration meant to camouflage the underlying nihilistic reality of a closed system universe with no purpose, justice or moral foundation."

* [JM noted multiple lines of evidence which make plausible a theistic worldview]:

"The philosophical and scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator
The historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus...
The psychological evidence against naturalistic reductionism...
The anthropological evidence for innate human knowledge of the spiritual...
The subjective evidence of my own personal encounters with the Holy Spirit…
...all of these to me are powerful lines of evidence rather than any sort of leap of faith. I believe faith should NEVER be “blind”…nor does Scripture endorse such a view."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Atheist's Position (Hugh)

Why Hugh rejects theism as valid:
* “As humankind's knowledge of the world expanded, religious ideas evolved to encompass what was known and offer explanations for it. Eventually, it was the turn of the monotheistic faiths that so many subscribe to today to come into being and offer their explanations for everything.”

* “…there is absolutely nothing in any of the holy books of any of them that arguably couldn't have been conceived of or known by people living at that time; so a claim of "divine inspiration" or "special knowledge" is definitely open to question.  [Hugh illustrated with examples of literal and moralistic interpretations of various passages in Scripture.]

* “Almost all the social, material and scientific progress of the world has been held back rather than assisted by theists. [Hugh gave examples of conflict between scientists and religious people.]

JM’s critique of Hugh’s answer:

* [JM noted that Hugh was committing basic errors in interpretation] “You’re [also] assuming passages in Scripture that are DESCRIPTIVE to be PROSCRIPTIVE.  You’re mistaking NARRATIVE for NORMATIVE… None of this is compelling evidence against the existence of a theistic God.  It’s just compelling evidence for why we shouldn’t settle for bad interpretations of Scripture!  ;)

* While I can’t speak for any other religious text, the Biblical texts…encourage a thorough never-ending study of the world around us…which is why the modern scientific method was birthed within the milieu of theism…if the above caricature was accurate, there would be no such thing as modern science (begun within a theistic worldview), genetics (Gregor Mendel, Francis Collins?), physics (Sir Isaac Newton?), astronomy (Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler??).   An honest appraisal of the history of science will reveal the fallacy of claiming that theism is somehow antagonistic to science.

Hugh’s rebuttal to JM’s critique:

* “He says that I am making the same error evangelicals make…The reply that comes to mind is, "So what?" How does that prove my point wrong? As far as empiricism goes, there is nothing in a lack of clarity that allows multiple interpretations which adds any support to the claim for the divine origin of the message. If anything, this is evidence against it.”

* “The beginnings of science were in ancient Greece where Empiricism came out of a philosophical, not religious, tradition. What religion adds to it is an extraneous factor, not a clarifying one… But even if your point were correct, it wouldn't necessarily mean that religion couldn't also hold back scientific progress.”

* Even if one accepts all his objections to my examples though, how does that show that his thesis is right? What JM's position boils down to is that he believes in it because he believes in it. That's just not good enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concluding remarks from JM:

I have really enjoyed this debate with Hugh.  Despite our use of fight imagery and occasional verbal jabs, we have a friendly relationship and both like honest, passionate debate that's civil without feeling the need to pull any punches. 

The initial question was why I reject atheism.  My initial reasons still remain and I haven't seen Hugh answer any of them compellingly.  His response to atheism's lack of explanatory ability regarding the origin of the universe was basically to shrug it off and say that no theory gives ultimate proof of how the universe came into being.  The fact stands, however, that the universe DID have a beginning, and something apart from the universe must have brought it into being.  This leans heavily against any atheistic scenario which, by definition, requires the cause of such an event as the entire universe coming into being be purely natural and unguided by higher power or creator.

Hugh's response to my charge that atheism entails a lack of ultimate objective meaning and purpose in life was to suggest some middle ground where life really does have meaning, but this meaning consists of what we choose to invest it with.  However, this is a self-contradictory statement.  If humans determine our own individual meaning to life then it is in no way ulitmate, objective, or binding on anyone other than ourselves.  Thus the person who devotes their life to bettering the world has no more meaningful life than the person who devotes theirs to becoming morbidly obese and watching reruns of Guiding Light all day.  Furthermore, if humans determine the meaning of their lives, then when humans are dead and gone, their lives cease to have meaning completely and the universe continues on into its eventual oblivion, as if humans never existed.  THIS is why nihilism is the logical conclusion to any naturalistic, atheistic worldview.  Yet many atheists continue to delude themselves into thinking life can actually have some inherent meaning apart from an objective source of such meaning--which theists recognize as God.

The same goes for any proposed system of morality from an atheist perspective.  Any notion of Justice or Morality must be purely naturalistic...and therefore not binding on those who react against it, as they too are just acting in accordance with their nature.  One may prefer a certain moral view of the world, but one can never logically claim that it is right and those who reject it are wrong.  An atheist may not like the fact that the Crusades occured, but they can not claim they were evil, because this implies an objective moral standard of which the Crusades fall short.  Theists on the other hand can (and do) claim the Crusades were ultimately, objectively morally wrong precisely because they violate the objective morality which we all inherently possess innate knowledge of--even if our view of how that morality should be applied differs from place to place in time.  [For a far better treatment of this point, see chs.2-3 of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.]

Lastly, it is quite telling--though of course not "proof" of theism--that almost every human being who has ever lived has possessed an innate belief in something of the divine.  Atheistic explanations of this fact border on the absurd.  It is much more plausible to suggest that there really IS something "out there" beyond what we know as the natural world.  All of creation seems to point beyond itself to something greater.  This is exactly what one would expect to find in a universe created by a God who wanted a free relationship with people.  For those open to such a relationship, there is more than enough evidence to validate belief in God.  Likewise, for those who have no desire for a relationship with God, He is sufficiently hidden in order to not compel their belief.