"I Contend We Are Both Atheists" - Response to Comments

For a brief time I had a blog called Apologia over at WordPress.com, but since I was unhappy with the limited customization available to free accounts (and do not have the time to play with CSS), I eventually opened my blog here. Having said that, I had written a post there (23/Oct/06) on the now-famous quote originally authored by Stephen Roberts, a former acquaintance of mine from my days in #Atheism on the Dalnet IRC network. The quote is: "I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" (The History of 'The Quote'). That article has generated a few comments from readers that happened upon it, but I am trying to divert traffic away from that inactive blog so I am going to start responding to comments here. The most recent comments are from two visitors, named "Kerin" and "DM."

Kerin writes:

How can you talk about rationality when… argh forget it, I’m over the whole debating about the existence of god, you don’t know, I don’t know there that settles it! happy?

It is a good thing she did not finish that first sentence, because in all likelihood she was about to make a complete fool of herself. And an unfinished sentence leaves nothing to respond to, so I am going to look at her agnostic assertion at the end. The fact of the matter is, the assertion that "you don't know, I don't know" is settled ONLY under an agnostic view. I am certainly not an agnostic, so she has no basis other than her own agnosticism to assert that I don't know—and I could really do without her shoving her beliefs down my throat. She is entitled to her agnosticism; she is not entitled to impose her views upon me. She can tell me about the things she doesn't know, but she cannot assert anything about what I know.

DM writes:

You describe Mr Roberts as "a good-natured fellow with a fantastic sense of humour who seemed to enjoy debate," then disregard that his comment is valid because it is clearly of a mocking nature. That you’ve read so deeply into it makes me believe that you’re terrified it is true. Then you (ironically) set yourself up against a religion (pantheism) that admits no god and accuse Mr Roberts of using a “straw man” tactic. Also, quoting Scripture as proof of your God is circular logic and you should be burned at the stake for such heresy (note: that’s humor…)

There are quite a few problems with DM's comments.

First, validity is not determined by the tone of a comment ("a mocking nature"); validity falls under the jurisdiction of logic. And as anyone can see (assuming they have a basic grasp of reading comprehension), my post critiqued the comment using logic, showing how it invalidated itself, under its own terms (with zero regard to tone). The comment utterly contradicts itself, intrinsically; it is a contradiction to "contend we are both atheists" in the context of a participant believing in "one fewer god" than another: (a) If Steve believes in one god while Mike believes in two or more, it is valid to say that Steve believes in "one fewer god" than Mike but contradictory to assert that either of them are atheists; (b) If Steve believes in no gods while Mike believes in at least one, it is valid to say that Steve believes in "one fewer god" than Mike but contradictory to assert that Mike is an atheist. The comment graphically impales itself on logic, regardless of its tone.

Second, I am not terrified of any truth. I love truth, passionately assert truth, constantly seek out truth. If you have something you contend as true, bring it forward; I would absolutely love to examine it. When one has a firm commitment to logic as I do, truth claims have no terrifying capacity (especially self-contradictory ones) because one is not operating emotionally but, rather, logically. Now, having invoked logic, I should like to identify your remark as an ad hominem fallacy, i.e. your comment regards the arguer (me), not the argument, and therefore fails the test of relevancy. Congratulations.

Third, to say that pantheism admits no god is false, displaying a lack of familiarity with pantheism. It does admit a god: the universe. Pantheists deify the cosmos (which atheists and myself deem a peculiar and impractical sentimentality).

Fourth, I argued that Roberts' comment is in danger of committing the Straw Man fallacy. How? Roberts said that "when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." One reason I dismiss the god of pantheism is because replacing "the term 'nature' with the term 'god' is superfluous and obfuscating outside the scope of sentimentality." If Roberts is consistent, he has to admit that he rejects the God of Christianity for the same reason. But it would be fallacious for Roberts to do so because Christianity is not a pantheistic religion.

And finally, I never use Scripture to prove the existence of God, so your criticism is irrelevant and vacuous.

Neale Donald Walsh and his New Revelations

The following excerpts are from The New Revelations by Neale Donald Walsch (published in the UK by Hodder Mobius), author of Conversations With God. The thesis behind these five statements, Walsh proposes, is that "there are five things you can choose now, if changing your world and the self-destructive direction in which it is moving is what you wish to achieve."

1. You can choose to acknowledge that some of your old beliefs about God and about Life are no longer working.

First of all, the issue should be less about what "works" and more about what is "true"—with a focus on the former being shaped by the latter. Concern for what "works" is more emotional and subjective, and good luck achieving a functioning consensus on that. Concern for what is "true" is more rational and objective, and has very little to do with our emotional proclivities. Secondly, the 'age' of a belief has no relevance; a belief is not better just because it is 'new'. We should critically examine our beliefs and convictions about mankind and the world, and observe whether those beliefs correspond to the world in which we live; e.g. someone might believe that mankind is generally 'good' and will have reasons for this belief, but when we examine the real world, is that really what we find? If our beliefs do not correspond with the real world (what's true), they will be of little use (what works).

2. You can choose to acknowledge that there is something you do not understand about God and about Life, the understanding of which will change everything.

This is a call for an end to bigotry. If only this were achievable! But alas, you merely need to propose a worldview which invokes the name of God to observe prevalent bigotry from those committed to atheistic views, for example. I fear there is no end to bigotry. (But my worldview continues to produce beliefs which consistently correspond to the world in which we live.)

3. You can choose to be willing for a new understanding of God and Life to now be brought forth, an understanding that could produce a new way of life on your planet.

Same as above. Such an end to bigotry is a pipe dream; sad, but true. It is an unrealistic hope because it inherently fails to account for the real obstacle against its ultimate realization. That is, the realization of this hope is a road upon which sits a massive brick wall, and as long as we ram into that brick wall, ignoring its existence, we'll never travel that road. We can propose to travel it and desire to, but until our view acknowledges and accounts for that brick wall, it will never be anything more than a desired proposal. We need a worldview that will predict the building of such a brick wall, who builds it and why, and how to dismantle it. Unfortunately, mankind is not that bright.

(The source Walsh is channelling is not very careful with its language, providing us apophatic conclusions about its identity, i.e. inadvertently informs us who it's not, by referring to "your planet"—something God would not say.)

4. You can choose to be courageous enough to explore and examine this new understanding, and, if it aligns with your inner truth and knowing, to enlarge your belief system to include it.

Again, my "inner truth" is of no use to anyone, not even me, if it is not actually true. I want real solutions that account for the real world we live in. I don't need another channelled spirit blowing sunshine up my ass. Unless it is proposing a commitment to truth, it's just offering more impractical noise; I want something that corresponds to the world we live in, not something that appeals to my precious sensitivities.

(The source Walsh is channelling contradicts itself here, basically saying, "If the 'new' understanding fits your 'old' understanding, incorporate it." But if bigotry was the problem, then expanding and propagating that bigotry is not much of a solution. Why call for a 'new' understanding, if fitness with the 'old' understanding is the test it must pass? If our 'old' way of understanding is not working, why retain it and ensure 'new' ways of understanding are consistent with it? Walsh should try channelling intelligent spirits.)

5. You can choose to live your lives as demonstrations of your highest and grandest beliefs, rather than as denials of them.

Ah, but he avoids the salient point, which is: What's the criteria for "highest and grandest"?

Bauchman on Postmodern Theodicy

I transcribed the following from a brief video clip featuring the voice of Voddie Bauchman Jr, a sampler of his thoughts on the "Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World" (possibly from his Ever Loving Truth Bible studies) posted at the DesiringGod.org Facebook group Don't Waste Your Life. I don't know where the original video is located, and I got nowhere with YouTube.com, so I can't include the video here.

Student: I just wanted to ask you that, um, if you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then how do you reconcile the issue of theodicy?

Bauchman: Took a semester of philosophy, right?

Student: Well, yes. How did you know?

Bauchman: 'Cause if you hadn't, you would've just said, "Listen, God's so powerful and so good: how come bad stuff happens?" But I'm not going to answer the question until you ask it correctly.

Student: Worked on that all week. What do you mean, "ask it correctly"?

Bauchman: You're not asking the question properly.

Student: What do you mean, ask the question properly? It's my question! You can't tell me how to ask my question!

Bauchman: I will answer your question when you ask it properly.

Student: How do I ask it properly?

Bauchman: Here's how you ask that question properly: You look me in my eyes and you ask me this, "How on earth can a holy and righteous God know what I did and thought and said on yesterday and not kill me in my sleep last night?" You ask it that way and we can talk. But until you ask the question that way, you don't understand the issue. Until you ask the question that way, you believe the problem is 'out there'. Until you ask the question that way, you believe that there are somehow some individuals who, in and of themselves, deserve something other than the wrath of almighty God! Until you ask me the question that way, until you flip the script and ask the question this way and say, "Why is it that we are here today? Why has he not consumed and devoured each and every one of us? Why? Why, oh God, does your judgment and your wrath tarry?" When you ask it that way, you understand the issue. When you ask it the other way, you believe in the supremacy of man; how dare God not employ his power on behalf of almighty man. You flip the question around, you believe in the supremacy of Christ; how dare I steal his air."

QUOTES: John Piper

Could there be any holy motivation to believe in Christ where there is no taste for the beauty of Christ? To be sure we could be motivated by the desire to escape hell, or the desire to have material riches, or the desire to rejoin a departed loved one. But how does it honor the Light when the only reason we come to the Light is to find those things that we loved in the dark? Is this saving faith?

- John Piper, senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN.

Shove This Down Your Throat

"What I can't stand is Christians who shove their beliefs down my throat."

Of all the ill-thought rhetoric coming from atheists, this oddly phrased tripe is one of those heard most often. (The verificationist mantra tops that list.) I am going to ignore how improbable that notion is, beyond anything other than hyperbolic rhetoric, and instead focus on another, far more revealing aspect of this issue: the fact that we Christians are routinely subjected to a militant campaign of atheistic beliefs.

After presenting a theistic argument for metaethics (values and morals), someone responded to me with, "Well, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it." And that remark gave me pause. For maybe the first time ever, I actually stopped and gave that remark some thought. Well now, what does he mean by this statement? Quite simply, he means that what I presented is 'not fact'. More elaborately, he means that one cannot 'know' these things are so, these things I presented about God and metaethics; it is merely my personal perspective on something which is ultimately unprovable (i.e. there is nothing within reality to which the terms of my propositions correspond).

But do you realize what he has done? He doesn't realize it. By telling me that the sum of my argument is only so much 'opinion', he has shoved HIS beliefs down MY throat, because his statement is true only under his particular belief system! (In this case, some version of Scientistic Agnosticism. Some fundy atheists out there might object to the idea that they have a 'belief system', but it matters not because they do have one. No, it's not atheism; but it is atheistic.) The epistemic virtues that produce a statement like that certainly do not stem from my belief system. Such virtues are found somewhere else: in practically every case, the atheist's belief system. By insisting, in a matter-of-fact way, that my metaethics argument is only so much 'opinion', the atheist has shoved his beliefs down my throat—

—and is truly a hypocrite.