Atheism Part 3: Two-stage Faith

Christians often accuse atheists of having more faith than Christians.

This is off-putting to atheists because they think of faith as believing without any evidence. Or believing contrary to evidence.

In other words, faith is blind.

Here is a two-stage definition of faith that I've found helpful in my discussions with atheists:

Step 1: Generic trust based on evidence.

Example: In the years leading up to 2007, both Christians and atheists drove their vehicles over the I35W bridge in Minneapolis. We trusted the engineers, the inspectors -- the whole "system" -- that built and maintained the bridge.

And we observed thousands of other vehicles successfully traversing the bridge.

Our conclusion: Venture out! Trust the steel trusses and concrete with your very life.

Christians and atheists had a ton of evidence the bridge was safe. But not proof.

In 2007 the bridge collapsed, killing 13 people.

In summary, step 1 faith is choosing to believe something based on evidence that stops short of proof.

Step 2: Personal trust and commitment. This is my faith in Jesus.

Now here's the point. As a Christian I have evidence (but not proof) that a biblical worldview is true.  That's step 1, and it's pretty much the same as trusting the bridge.

Step 1 faith is what I have in common with atheists. I choose a generic kind of faith based on evidence.

But when it comes to religion, what really counts as evidence? Atheists and Christians disagree here.

I'll discuss it next week.

See you next week

Atheists and Faith

Recently I had the privilege of engaging in an informal discussion with an atheist student ("Matt") in front of a class at a prominent local high school.

After the class period, Matt said to me that he wished he and I could come to an agreement on the definition of faith.

Timeout.

I've always enjoyed the company of atheists. I seem to click with them.

But they can be sneaky on this question of faith.

Their definition of faith is believing without any evidence, and they tend to impose this definition on me.

But my definition is believing because of the evidence.

So what do you think? Should I go with the atheist definition (Matt's), or with my own definition and experience of faith?

That's easy. It's my faith. I can define it however I choose (that is, from within my theological tradition).

Folks, Christian philosophers remind us that we are under no moral or intellectual obligation to play by atheist rules in our discussions.

I think it unlikely that Matt and I could settle on a common definition of faith.

After all, by my definition, he has as much faith as I do.

Atheists Big and LIttle

In my travels I interact with many atheists.

Generally, there are two levels:

1. The Big Boys: professional philosophers who bring a sophisticated product to the table.

A sampling of names: William Rowe, J.L. Mackie, Quentin Smith, Kai Neilsen, the early Antony Flew.

Thoughtful Christians should read their books and essays, and interact with their arguments. They force us, quite helpfully, to elevate the quality of our apologetic.

2. The Pretenders: the "new" atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Lots of rhetoric here, not much philosophical substance.

Many devotees of the new atheists are not aware of their own professionals. Rather, they parrot the dismissive tones (and sense of victimhood) of the Pretenders.

One can hear their harsh tones at school and office.

If you've been confronted by a disciple of the Pretenders, I'd like to assure you that it's mostly bluster.

My advice is to ask questions, show love and respect, find out what they really think -- and why. Don't get into a verbal shoving match.

At some point your manner will open a door for witness.