Considering the continually growing voices of atheists in our society, who make arguments against religion on grounds that religion is unreasonable and even immoral, I was taken aback upon opening The Texas Catholic and seeing an editorial about how it’s foolish to argue with atheists. The Catholic News Service editorialist asserts, without any evidence, that atheists have a hidden agenda and have set their will against believing. Therefore, they won’t let you convince them.
I could point to a number of blogs by former atheists who became convinced of God’s existence, and I doubt not that I could find blogs by former theists turned atheists. Believers and unbelievers change their minds. Struggles happen, evidence is considered, arguments are made, and minds change. There’s no universal hidden agenda here.
In his editorial, Fr. Father John Catoir continues to assert that theists shouldn’t argue with atheists because atheists laugh at theists at their mentioning of angels. Atheists are in denial, he says, and “would rather enjoy their delusion than admit they are subject to God and his supreme law.” It couldn’t be that atheists are atheists because they have come to the conclusion that their position is true, could it?
The editorial concludes:
The next time an atheist asks you to prove that God exists, just say, “I don’t have to. God will do that for you one second after your death.”With all due respect, if I were to say such things to my atheist friends, they would deride me, and they would be right to do so. I understand that the arguments of Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes, and others may not have the sway the once had, but these snarky gibes just aren’t the way to spread the Good News in our postmodern society. (EC)
Or say, “Albert Einstein is arguably the most brilliant scientist in the history of the world. He was convinced that there has to be a supreme intelligence behind the universe. Are you smarter than Einstein?”
7 profound comments:
"I could point to a number of blogs by former atheists who became convinced of God’s existence"
Can you point to any who became convinced as the result of theistic arguments?
Do you really doubt that atheists, like theists, want to see society reflect their metaphysical vision of the world and change it to meet their (secular) vision? The New Atheists say they do, very clearly and loudly. They are quite up front about it.
As for how open these guys are to changing their minds, I have not found them to be so. In my discussions, the very atheists who say "if there is a God, where is He? Why doesn't He appear?" will, in a candid moment, admit that if such a theophany did occur, they would check themselves into a psych ward. They would sooner deny the evidence of their senses than change their mind about God, no matter what the evidence is or how strong it is. Using reason to convince them is out of the question.
I will share with you a quote from Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" in which he argues against the possibilty of miracles and declares that even if he saw a marble statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary wave at him, he would not judge it to be a miracle, but merely an improbable physical event. You may have seen this quote even if you never read the book - it's infamous:
"In the case of the marble statue, molecules in solid marble are continuously jostling against one another in random directions. The jostlings of the different molecules cancel one another out, so the whole hand of the statue stays still. But if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules just happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen. The odds against such a coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not incalculably great. A physicist colleague has kindly calculated them for me."
So tell me again, Kyle, how open-minded these guys are, and how worthwhile it is to argue with them.
Jennifer Fulwiler writing at her blog Conversion Diary speaks to the role of theistic arguments that convinced her that belief in God was reasonable and true. The Curt Jester mentions the five proofs of God as detailed by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae as being instrumental in moving him away from atheism and toward theism.
From the theistic standpoint, it is worthwhile to share the reasons for religious faith with atheists because it is the sharing of truth, and from a Christian standpoint, believers have a divine command to do so. To claim with certainty that the minds of atheists (or, on the other hand, theists) cannot be changed is an example of despair. And the claim doesn't correspond to reality. See the evidence above.
I have to say that I really agree with you, Kyle. I wasn't an atheist, but I was an anti-Christian agnostic for a long time. No one arguing with me or telling me I was wrong made me change my mind, and heart. From that standpoint, no, YOU are not going to change an atheist's mind. However, all of those conversations I have had led me to inquiry. The more I read, the more I reasoned and the more I inquired, the more I found the answers I almost hated to find. Then the "unimagineable" happened and I accepted Christ. The point of my account is that God himself opens our hearts to His message and no man can do that alone. It is our responsibility to be good friends and counsel for others, to share the message appropriately and to continue the "argument" with those who do not believe. We never know if we are the one small part of God's larger plan to change someone's heart - to knock that they would open the door. To say outright that we should stop the practice of "arguing" with atheists stands completely in the face of what we are called to do. I'm not promoting Bible beating, but I think that part of our calling is to be a voice for others to hear. Some of us choose to keep our voices quieter than others, but it's still our responsibility.
The other issue I have is with this argument that atheists have a hidden agenda. While a small number certainly do, and most would rather the rest of the world share their views, atheists are no more right or wrong in that view than theists. Modern science, while truly an amazing, God-given experience, creates a mindset that we have all the answers. But we don't. I recently read a book titled "The Quantum Engima" that explored the relationship between modern physics and consciousness. It was an incredible read, but the implications are enormous. They reason that it's possible that without a link to a common, collective consciousness (God perhaps) that we might not have a true physical world around us in the form we interact with. And have you read about the theory presented by Nielsen and Ninomiya that the CERN Collider may reveal tampering from some unknown force in the future? Their theory asserts that the malfunctions and challenges faced by this, and the super conducting super collider, may in fact be a model for providing the existence of God. So do we really have all of the answers, or does science leave us always in a state of uncertainty? My point is that science, scientific pursuit of knowledge and the belief in God are not mutually exclusive. It is a false conclusion that many come to and that shapes their world view. The more we learn, scientifically, the more we are left wondering if science does have all the answers. Again, with friendly dialogue and sharing of our own thoughts, ideas and beliefs, we never know if we will be that one element that might change someone else's beliefs. It's not our singular responsibility or even our own ability, but like most other happenings in this world, it is our role being played out in God's larger plan.
I am always glad to engage in dialogue with even the most antagonistic agnostic or atheist. FWIW, I was an antagonistic agnostic, too - for nine years. I was not amenable to correction by argument, but after my reversion, the seeds planted by discussions I had with theists bore fruit I never expected. I don't deny that SOME of us ought to engage atheists in dialogue. But I don't believe that we are all obligated to respond to every obnoxious prat who sneers "Prove to me there is a God" with some classical argument. Niether the Petrine call to give a ready apologia for the hope that is in us nor the divine command that we are preach the good news of our salvation obligates every ordinary Joe Christian or Jane Catholic to become philosophical theologians, and some people aren't really looking for the truth. Some people are out there to sow doubt and spread disbelief. I used to be one of them. I was an anti-evangelist, trying to convert people away from their religions. I now engage in dialogue with atheists whose stated goals are the same as mine once was when I was a militant secularist - they are very open and honest about it, to their credit. I do not think every believer is called to fight that fight - God gives different gifts to different folks, and it's just not the case that every believer is divinely commanded to argue with fools.
Good points, Ben.
While it’s not likely that an atheist or a theist will change his or her mind, such change is conceivable and has happened, if ever so slowly. Strong believers pretty much all hold dear to their religions or philosophies or politics or ideologies or what have you. To a degree, the point of debate shouldn’t be to change the other’s mind, but to work together to come to a better understanding of one another’s sense of truth. Maybe that’s just the pluralist in me saying that.
Kevin,
I agree that not everyone is called to participate or capable of participating in every debate, religious or otherwise, and, yes, there are some people who enter debates with no desire for truth but only the desire to destroy. Usually a waste of time to engage them, at least in arguments. There are other ways, as St. Monica showed.
It is good to plant the seed.
Post a Comment