This post is long. Deal with it!
One of my students recently referred me to a post on the SparkLife blog called “Life as an Atheist.” After reading the article, I remained annoyed, so I decided to post the article here and offer up some thoughts.
Here it is:
You might have read the title of this post and gasped. “An atheist!? Oh, the horror!” Or maybe you thought, “What does that even mean?” Or, maybe, you had no reaction other than “eh.”
I’m an “eh” person here. I used to be an atheist, so I’m not surprised that they exist.
Usually when I state my views on religion, I get the first response. Angry stares, shocked expressions, silent condemnations, and some people even walk away. All because of one little sentence: “I’m an atheist.”
I know it’s not like this everywhere. Some cities and states are extremely open-minded. Unfortunately, I do not live in one of those places. I live in Colorado Springs, Colorado. And Colorado Springs is unlike the rest of Colorado. Colorado is mostly Democratic, liberal, and extremely open-minded. But Colorado Springs… is the total opposite. And really, extremely Christian, which puts me in a distinct minority.
I do apologize if people really treat you this way, esp. if they are Christians. That’s not what we’re supposed to do. Forgive us. (Question: How do you know it’s a condemnation if it’s silent? Not to be too deconstructionist here, but perhaps that’s just your interpretation.)
I generally keep my views to myself (because I’m shy and like to avoid conflict), but it can be hard. At least two of my teachers always bring up religion in class, and when I don’t get biblical references, I’m questioned.
What do you mean when you say “I’m questioned”? Do you feel like you’re being interrogated? Just curious…
Today I’m going to answer questions, but not about the Bible. These are my answers to the most common questions I get about my beliefs…
This is where I start to get excited about this post. Here is an atheist who is going to prove atheism to me. Unfortunately, “Contributor” does nothing of the sort.
Why are you an atheist?
This is the most common one, and the hardest to answer. I’m very opinionated, and I’ll easily go on for hours about why God can’t exist, why, if He did, there are so many inconsistencies and caveats… like I said, I can go on. So, unless I know the person is willing to debate with me, I shrug and say “It seems illogical.”
Two thoughts here:
- You’ve already contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that you avoided confrontation, but here you make it sound like you love talking about it. Though, of course, your actions (e.g., this blog post) don’t show that.
- Another contradiction — you told us you were going to give us answers to common questions. Yet, for what is possibly the biggest question (“Why are you an atheist?”) you offer no answer. This is frustrating for me.
Here’s the problem with many Christian vs. Atheist debates. The atheist never feels like the burden of proof is on him/her. Instead, they can bully the theist ad infinitum requesting evidence for his/her theistic assertion. Atheists, please realize that you too have made an assertion that requires evidence. You have asserted there is no God. Show me evidence. “Contributor”, please tell me what “seems illogical.” I find it hard to believe that your sense of logic is that much better than most of the greatest thinkers of all time. Help me to see their error.
I do still have morals!
I agree with some of the morals that Christianity and other religions propose, and I follow them. I don’t have to believe in God to believe that all people should be treated fairly, and I try to live by that rule. Basically, I make up my own morals. If I feel that something should be done, I do it.
Question: How do you go about making up your own morals? Where do those moral ideas come from? How do you know what justice and fairness are?
Why, if there were no God and no such thing as Hell, would people be good?
Why wouldn’t they? Everything you do is up to you, and if you want to be good, well then, problem solved. If you don’t want to do nice things, no one can change that. People live by the morals they believe are right, and if that happens to be “good,” then awesome.
This seems like a silly question, and I’d never ask that. Here’s what I want to know: If morals are relative, how do we know what “good” is? Is there even such a thing as “good” or “morals” if all things are equal and it is left up to the individual to decide what is “right” and “wrong”?
What happens when we die?
I don’t even have an inkling. Personally, I believe that we just stop existing, and that’s that. But I know other atheists who believe that their soul will carry on, just not their corporal body. It varies, basically.
Fair enough.
Are you telling me I shouldn’t believe in God?
Not at all. If you believe in God, and you’re happy with that, then I’m happy for you. All I ask is that you’re happy for me, and don’t try to shove your beliefs down my throat. I accept you, and you believe in God. And I’m totally fine with that.
I understand your frustration with people “shoving it down your throat.” I’ve been there. However, put yourself in a Christian’s shoes for just a moment. It is not possible for me to be “happy for you” in this particular case. Sure, I might be happy that you’re doing well, that you made a new friend, or received a job offer or whatever. But I cannot be happy about your choice to believe the tenets of atheism. As a Christian, I see you as lost. I would never say: “Oh yea! That little boy is lost!” Out of love for you, because I believe that you were created in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect, I am compelled to tell you about Jesus. Sure, some of my friends don’t have a lot of tact, but we are just doing it out of concern for your well being.
OK, you can get out of my shoes now.
I hope you have had some of your questions answered!
Unfortunately, no. You’ve not really answered any questions. Instead, you’ve just said: “I don’t know.” This is not compelling or interesting.
My intention is not to offend you, I promise. If you have any more questions, or just want to talk about anything, please leave me a message in the comments!
Sorry, can’t leave stuff in the comments because that would require me to sign up for a SparkLife account, and I just can’t bring myself to do it.
I would love for you to answer the first question. Why are you an atheist? When you answer that question, please give me some evidence to tell me why you believe there is no God or gods. (No need for you to attempt to disprove Christianity, yet. Start by disproving theism since that is what you are adamantly opposed to.)
Has atheism ever appealed to you?
Yes. I was an atheist for much of my youth. However, when someone asked me to disprove the existence of a god, I started to have trouble.
Dear readers — your thoughts?
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
your position reminds me of book, “The Problem With Pluralism”. Most honest athiests I’ve chatted with simply don’t want to have to submit to anyone or anything else; they want to be their own god… the temptation is primal, the consequence is eternal, the solution is antithetical, and the quandary is metaphysical. Jn.3:17-18
i was talking with my friend this summer about faith, she said “yeh i have christian friends, but they dont really talk to me about it, theyre happy for me and love me whatever faith i am”. and i was like well sure yeh they should love you. but if they truelly believe that what they believe is truth they should want you to know it. and their heart should be broken for you, like mine is for yours. and they should try and let you know the truth as best they can without shoving it down your throat, they can tell you with love. because they want you to spend eternity in heaven with them. they want you to believe
Preach! and I again I say, “preach!”
Well articulated and well reasoned, Stephen. The statement he made, “It seems illogical,” is a common one, and so silly that one would think one would keep that a secret. Of course, the difference between “it seems logical” and “it is illogical” is profound. Perhaps he is a weak thinker or suffering from delusion. Or he might be right. Yet, what “seems” to be true to him is in no way compelling to the rest of us who also use logic . . .
I haven’t met (or heard of or read from) an atheist who didn’t (1) disagree with certain versions of bad/silly Christians and therefore respond by abandoning Christianity, (2) really enjoy the attention of being in the minority at some level (i.e., it provided some psychological strokes), and (3) considered themselves intellectually elitist because they have “risen above ancient myths to hard scientific evidence.”
Pff.
Very interesting read and argument. I think this could help me in dealing with an atheist friend of mine. I loved what you said about how in Christian vs. Atheist arguments that Christians are always the ones on the defense and atheists on offense. Overall, you made a solid argument
@jkelley — Love that last sentence of your comment.
@Ryan — Some will say that you can’t prove a negative (i.e., you can’t prove the non-existence of something). This is by no means a law of logic. Check it out: “Thinking Tools: You Can Prove a Negative.”
really solid and true. thanks Mr. Hebert.
First of all, Dr. Pendy –
“…and considered themselves intellectually elitist because they have ‘risen above ancient myths to hard scientific evidence.’ Pff.”
You obviously consider yourself intellectually elitist:
- “Perhaps he is a weak thinker or suffering from delusion.”
- “what “seems” to be true to him is in no way compelling to the rest
of us who also use logic . . ”
I could go on…
Oh, and does anyone else have a problem with the term “psychological strokes?” Dr. Pendy – I am not faulting you for this one. I just hate the term. Who’s with me?
Anyway, I initially planned to send my responses to Mr. Hebert via e-mail, for fear of being flamed by narrow-minded members of the HCHS community. Then I realized that I don’t care – it’s no secret that I disagree with the majority of HCHS faculty members and students on most political and theological issues.
Mr. Hebert, I agree with most of your commentary here. I do not systematically deny the existence of a God figure, thus I do not consider myself an atheist. Rather, at this point in my life, I have just grown increasingly frustrated with the Church and the conformity-based Christianity that HCHS seems to promote. Not to mention my frustrations with the Republican party’s use of fundagelical (I realize that is not a real word) Christianity to brainwash the masses into resisting societal progress. So I guess that makes me an agnostic, although I know some people who take issue with that term. However, I do have a few points that I would like to address…
“Here’s the problem with many Christian vs. Atheist debates. The atheist never feels like the burden of proof is on him/her. Instead, they can bully the theist ad infinitum requesting evidence for his/her theistic assertion. Atheists, please realize that you too have made an assertion that requires evidence. You have asserted there is no God. Show me evidence. “Contributor”, please tell me what “seems illogical.” I find it hard to believe that your sense of logic is that much better than most of the greatest thinkers of all time. Help me to see their error.”
This statement seems very judgmental and unlike you, Mr. Hebert. To be completely honest, it kind of pisses me off. I agree with your assertion that, in Christian v. Atheist debates, the Atheist must support their argument and not merely bully the Christian. However, I take issue with your statement “I find it hard to believe that your sense of logic is that much better than most of the greatest thinkers of all time.” So, according to you, most of the greatest thinkers of all time were Christian. I know many people who would disagree with this. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. Please clarify.
“Question: How do you go about making up your own morals? Where do those moral ideas come from? How do you know what justice and fairness are?”
Question: could Contributor not have derived his moral ideals from non-religious sources? Plus, the ideas of justice and fairness are very subjective. I don’t think it’s just or fair to deny gay men and women the right to marry. I also don’t think it’s just or fair to deny women the right to abort children. NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO INITIATE A DEBATE ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE OR ABORTION. ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT TRYING TO INITIATE A DEBATE ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE OR ABORTION. Just need to make that clear. My point is that, even among Christians, their is much debate about what is just and what is fair.
“Out of love for you, because I believe that you were created in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect, I am compelled to tell you about Jesus. Sure, some of my friends don’t have a lot of tact, but we are just doing it out of concern for your well being.”
I like what you have to say here. Yeah, many of your friends don’t have any tact. I’m curious: do you feel the same way about people you know who are Muslims or Buddhists? Do you see those who believe in other religions as being just as “lost” as atheists?
In conclusion: this guy’s post sucked. But, I would like to point out that if you asked an average HCHS student to articulate their reasons for believing in Christianity, it would suck just as much as this.
Thanks for chiming in, Dillon. Here’s my take on what you’ve got to say to me (I’ll let Dr. Pendy speak for himself):
Glad you spoke up. You know I like the open dialogue. I feel like you and I tend to agree on a lot of stuff. But, maybe that’s just because I’m almost as hipster as you…
Question: What are your frustrations with the Church? What do you mean by “conformity-based Christianity”? Am I a representative of that?
Just a thought. When I find I’m frustrated with something, I try (but often fail) to ask this question: “Am I part of the problem?” OR “What am I doing about the problem?”
Are you alluding to my joke about this term? Honestly, I just think most folks who claim that they are agnostic are really leaning one way or the other but are afraid to take the plunge. In this sense, being agnostic is too safe. I like folks who are bold, yet open-minded.
I don’t know. I’m also the guy that says things like: “I don’t care what you have to say, tell me what [INSERT NAME OF AUTHOR HERE] has to say. Why? Because he/she is more famous than you. When you write a book, we’ll talk about what you have to say…”
Perhaps this one was a bit more mean-spirited, but the writer evaded the question and then received kudos for evading the question. This caused me a great deal of frustration. Did I let it get the best of me?
If you read most books on atheism (or the recent writings of Ricky Gervais), atheists won’t agree with this (go browse google.com/books). Most of them, when discussing burden of proof, say that the theist must prove god. Theists offer proof for a god, but atheists don’t think it’s enough. Okay, why don’t you think there is a god? Evolution is not an answer…I believe in evolution and many prominent Christian thinkers have before me.
At any rate, atheists are the Party of No here…and I know you don’t like the Party of No, Dillon!
In the western tradition, this is true. For example, if you look at Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy you will find that most of the philosophers he discusses are Christian. Now, Russell is the 20th century atheist par excellence, and he seems to think that these guys were important. Admittedly, if we expand beyond the West, our numbers may change. We may even have to include women (which Russell doesn’t)!
The point is this: A great number of the world’s greatest philosophers have been Christians. Furthermore, the number of Christians in university philosophy departments has been on the rise for quote some time. Is “Contributor’s” understanding more advanced than their’s such that he/she can say that theism “seems illogical”?
EDIT (left this out): Now, if you read me carefully, I say nothing specifically about Christianity. I think it would be very easy to show that the world’s greatest thinkers have been, by and large, believers in some sort of god.
The real issue though is that he/she has made a silly statement with no evidence to back it up. “Seems illogical” just isn’t an answer. Even if you were one of the greatest logicians of all time, I’d still ask you to show me what is illogical.
Sure, depending on how we define “religious source.” For example, I derived much of my morality from my dad who is not a particularly religious source. However, most of the moral ideals he passed down to me would align with Christian morality.
Really, though, this was an honest question. Are you an absolute moral relativist? If not, where do you get your ideas about morality? I want to know.
First, I don’t believe you. If you hadn’t meant to start these thoughts in someone’s mind, you would’ve chosen much less divisive topics. C’mon…c’mon…(maybe, I’m wrong…)
At any rate, to talk of abortion and gay marriage would be a red herring. I’ll just say, I agree with you on one but not the other.
Yes, when we get down to particulars, the ideas of justice and fairness can be applied (or misapplied) to specific moral situations in a variety of ways. However, we all agree that there is something called justice and something called fairness. I bet that if we polled a bunch of folks about a great many ethical situations we would find that our ideas of justice and fairness are very similar. For example:
- Should you cut in line?
- Should you steal that which doesn’t belong to you?
- Should you eat food that has been sacrificed to idols?
(Well, maybe not that last one…)
The larger point is this: Where do these ideas of justice and fairness come from? Are they created by individuals (relativists)? Society (social contract)? A higher power (theism)?
Yes and no. Christianity, like any other community, is exclusive. I believe I have a claim to absolute truth. If I thought there was something better out there (“Hmmm…that guy’s philosophy seems truthier than mine…”), then I’d be foolish not to run and grab on to that. A community that doesn’t have boundaries is not really a community. For example, if Fred Phelps walked into an LBGT meeting, he probably wouldn’t be treated very kindly. Of course, we don’t make the claim that the LBGT folks are exclusivist, but they are. Every community has certain rules and boundaries.
So, Christian rules and boundaries involve belief in God (aka Yahweh), Jesus as His Son, the Holy Spirit, etc. [You can practically insert the Apostle's Creed here.] If you believe otherwise (as a Muslim or Buddhist would), then you are not part of the Christian community. Because I believe the Christian community has possession of the Truth, then I would naturally consider outsiders “lost.” So, yes.
Here’s the “no.” I would not consider adherents of other religions (e.g., Islam) as “lost” as atheists. This is because I believe atheism to be the narrowest and most exclusive of worldviews because atheists tend to be naturalists who believe that the natural world is everything. (Educate me on that if I’m wrong.) Most religious communities, however, tend to believe that there is the natural world and the supernatural world. In this sense, religious folks are one step truthier than atheists.
Now, it should be noted that the idea of “lost” has nothing to do with ethics. There are plenty of moral atheists who make plenty of Christians look like little Hitlers. This isn’t about ethics so much as faith. What are you putting your faith in? What possibilities are you allowing for? Do you believe only in what can be quantified, categorized, and easily referenced? Or do you believe that there is something bigger than quarks and quasars? (NB: Quasars are pretty darn big.)
Furthermore, I would like to note that this is not at all meant to be judgmental in the Biblical sense. I do not pretend to determine where a person’s soul will reside for eternity. This is judgmental, however, in the philosophical sense. We all make philosophical judgments. We take evidence from around us and develop a worldview. Naturally, some things are going to be in and some things are going to be out. Again: no community is all-inclusive. All communities define themselves and definitions require categorization — boundary-making. Admittedly, some are more exclusive than others. The community of folks that live in Trump Tower is pretty exclusive. The community of folks that live in Project Row Houses is exclusive too!
What makes Christianity so philosophically compelling to me is the way it inverts power. It feels right to put others before me. It feels right that the first should be last. It feels right that I should seek to avoid pride and selfishness at all cost.
Do most Christians practice that? Probably not. Do I? Well, I try, but fail frequently.
If atheism is true, then what are you really living for? Why live for something outside yourself? What compels you to consider others? If it’s just common decency, then where did the idea of what is and what isn’t decent come from?
Amen.
I’m not sure why you call out HCHS students specifically. You agreed with the Barna Group’s assessment of Christians as being theologically illiterate, generally speaking. I think most Christians have difficulty articulating why they believe. As a community, we need to take 1 Peter 3.15 a little more seriously.
“But, maybe that’s just because I’m almost as hipster as you…”
Please, you are far more hipster than I. You live in freaking Project Rowhouses. Has my neighborhood been written about in the NY Times? Negative.
“Question: What are your frustrations with the Church? What do you mean by “conformity-based Christianity”? Am I a representative of that?”
You see, I was pretty into my faith last year. However, I was no less Liberal than I am now. I read a lot of Jim Wallis, Donald Miller, and Rob Bell – and I believed in a type of Christianity that emphasized social justice. However, at HCHS, I was consistently told that this type of Christianity was wrong. I could not be a Christian and believe in evolution and taxing the wealthy. (I didn’t mention gay marriage and abortion in that sentence for a reason). Moreover, I was met with vehement opposition to my non-literal interpretation of the Bible. It seemed to me like I was being told that only HCHS-branded Christianity was correct. That’s what I mean by conformity-based Christianity.
In terms of my frustrations with the Church, they can all be boiled down to one issue: opposing societal progress. Our country is progressing, and if the Church wants to win me over, they need to progress with it, instead of consistently advocating for “family values” (the f word) and a theocratic system of governance. Moreover, Christians need to accept that we live in an age of religious pluralism, and stop insisting that the entire world needs to be evangelized.
Note: I am not stupid, and I recognize that the above paragraph is based solely on generalizations. But this is from MY perspective…
And Hebert, you are not representative of any of the concerns that I noted above. We have already discussed this, I think…
“Are you alluding to my joke about this term? Honestly, I just think most folks who claim that they are agnostic are really leaning one way or the other but are afraid to take the plunge. In this sense, being agnostic is too safe. I like folks who are bold, yet open-minded.”
Yes, I am alluding to your joke. To be honest, I can’t say that I’m really leaning one way. I don’t know, and I’m happy with not knowing. I’m not going to say I’m an atheist when I can’t prove it. Then I would be like the author of this original post…
“At any rate, atheists are the Party of No here…and I know you don’t like the Party of No, Dillon!”
Precisely. This is why I don’t consider myself an atheist. I can’t prove that a God, Christian or otherwise, doesn’t exist. Moreover, I can’t prove that one does.
“EDIT (left this out): Now, if you read me carefully, I say nothing specifically about Christianity. I think it would be very easy to show that the world’s greatest thinkers have been, by and large, believers in some sort of god.”
THIS I can agree with. I also agree with your statement that contributor is definitely not any smarter than some of the philosophers you have in mind. He’s a dumb teenager. Kids these days.
“Sure, depending on how we define “religious source.” For example, I derived much of my morality from my dad who is not a particularly religious source. However, most of the moral ideals he passed down to me would align with Christian morality.”
There’s a difference in morals that align with Christianity and morals that are a derived from Christianity. Things like being kind to others and not stealing are pretty universally-held beliefs. How am I supposed to know that these moral beliefs started with Christianity?
“The larger point is this: Where do these ideas of justice and fairness come from? Are they created by individuals (relativists)? Society (social contract)? A higher power (theism)?”
How about a combination of the three? Impossible? What if I want to be a relativontractheist?
“Here’s the “no.” I would not consider adherents of other religions (e.g., Islam) as “lost” as atheists. This is because I believe atheism to be the narrowest and most exclusive of worldviews because atheists tend to be naturalists who believe that the natural world is everything. (Educate me on that if I’m wrong.) Most religious communities, however, tend to believe that there is the natural world and the supernatural world. In this sense, religious folks are one step truthier than atheists.”
This I can definitely agree with. But what compels you to view atheists as lost? That’s the thing I don’t get. To me, spirituality is a very personal thing. You’re a Christian, that works for you. Richard Dawkins is an atheist, that works for him. Barack Obama is a Muslim, and that works for him. Why can’t we all just get along?
Okay, the Obama comment was a joke. But seriously, why can’t we just accept that different things work for different people? Why does someone always have to be right? Grrr…
“I’m not sure why you call out HCHS students specifically. You agreed with the Barna Group’s assessment of Christians as being theologically illiterate, generally speaking. I think most Christians have difficulty articulating why they believe. As a community, we need to take 1 Peter 3.15 a little more seriously.”
I guess it’s not fair to call out HCHS students specifically. But I’m angry, so that’s what I did. To me, the school is just the epitome of believing in things without knowing why. I am thankful that some, such as yourself, are trying to change this.
Thanks again for your thoughts, Dillon. In an effort to be gracious, I’ll allow you to have the last word on several of these items, but I will answer your questions and address new items you brought up. Fair enough?
Of course, I wouldn’t argue that these moral beliefs started with “Christianity” — since Christianity is only 2,000 years old and these ideas were around much longer than that. My contention would be that the pervasiveness of moral ideas that contradict what would seem to support a “survival of the fittest” mentality (e.g., the moral obligation to treat those outside your clan fairly) points to some sort of creator of that morality. So, I’m not saying you’re supposed to know those ideas started with Christianity. I’m saying that you may be able to sense that those ideas come (a) from outside yourself, and (b) maybe even outside of humanity.
Ha!
If no one was ever right then I only see two logical possibilities for what’s going on:
(a) There is no such thing as right and/or wrong.
(b) No one has yet discovered the right answer.
I think (a) can be discounted rather quickly. We all seem to understand that some things are simply wrong. Now, (b) is more difficult. Perhaps we’re all wrong. I’d contend that to some degree that is true. I’m sure that my ideas about God aren’t perfectly correct. However, Christianity, like all other worldviews, makes some truth claims. If I believed that Islam was just as “right” as Christianity then ideas within Christianity (e.g., the divinity of Christ) would lack coherence because Muslims flat out deny that notion. We can both be wrong on this, but we can’t both be right.
Again, read the paragraph in the original post about putting yourself in a Christian’s shoes. If I believe in Christianity, then I must believe that an atheist has some very muddled ideas about how the universe works. If we were just talking about a set of propositions, then I might say: “Whatever.” But, because I believe there is a better way to view that world which ultimately leads to (a) personal transformation and (b) eternal joy, I am duty-bound to let you know about it. I must because I believe it is good for you, it is good for me, it is good for humanity.
Once I asked a hard-line Calvinist, “If the elect are already chosen, then why evangelize.” Though I don’t find the hyper-Calvinist concept of election satisfying, I did find his answer to be truthful and honest: “Because we’re commanded to do so.” My friend was alluding to the Great Commission (Matt 28.16–20). If I believe Jesus is God, and I believe that what he said in the Gospels is true, then I should probably do what is commanded of his disciples.
I can see where you’re coming from on that. Let’s work to affect positive cultural change. I found our pecha-kucha project enlightening. I’m hoping to do another in the Spring where the students layout (a) what they believe, and (b) why they believe it. If we do that, then we’ll see what’s up. For some, I imagine they’ll believe what they believe on the authority of family, friends, and their church. Does this fulfill the obligation put upon the Christian in 1 Peter 3.15 to be prepared to offer a defense?
Stephen,
My wife (a photographer in austin) knows your wife, which is how I came across your blog. Atheism is such a troubling subject for me; I had a close friend turn atheist for what seemed to me a trading of religious fundamentalism for scientific fundamentalism. This of course is not to imply that all atheist are scientific fundamentalist. I dare say the problem of evil has a better statistical record of converting persons to atheism than science. But that is rather beside the point.
It is certainly odd for the blogger you criticize to appeal to logic. Dawkins work is notoriously filled with logical fallacies. There is a great review of Dawkins book by the Analytic Philosopher Thomas Nagel (an atheist himself) that completely destroys Dawkins God Delusion. Nagel knows better than to try to write something like Dawkins or Dennett. He has an interesting piece on why he is an atheist in his book, The Last Word.
At the end of the day, I dont think that most of the important things that we know, believe, or act upon are a matter of pure logic. Epistemic dependence is fundamental to our way of life, no less for science than it is for religion. I for one spend most of my time studying analytic philosophy, I love it. I think the tools from logic are invaluable on the path to wisdom. Nevertheless logic is only a small piece of the puzzle of how we determine things like truth, justice, love, etc.
I suspect few people looked at an argument from natural theology and were utterly compelled to Christian belief. Likewise I doubt that anyone simply read Sam Harris’ book and said, “wow, he is so logical I think I will be an atheist.” I think it has more to do with their family, their friends, their community, their life experiences, their education, their character development, etc.
In closing, I think the problem of evil is a real problem. Of course the problem of the good is a lesser known problem. However, using science as a reason for atheism is probably never a good idea.
{ 1 trackback }