See you in a few weeks

Responding to Atheism with Strength . . . or Weakness?

The Portable Atheist features an essay by Emma Goldman, a Russian-born "anarchist" who was deported from the US in 1919.

She writes,

The God idea express[es] a sort of spiritualistic stimulus to satisfy the fads and fancies of every shade of human weakness.

Atheists often paint belief in God as weakness:

Weakness of heart in that we lack the courage to face the harsh realities of the natural world.

Weakness of mind in that we cannot think for ourselves but must invent a deity to worship who then spoon-feeds us the answers to life.

A proper response for evangelicals?

One approach is to demonstrate the strength of evangelical fortitude and intellect. Challenge atheist assumptions, find chinks in their armor, stand strong.

The other is to admit our faults, agree that we are weak, and demonstrate that broken people can find healing and serve productively in society with the help of Jesus.

The first approach is modernist and is likely to feel natural to Christian baby boomers and older, like myself.

The second approach is more postmodern and would be adopted easily by young people (and others young of heart).

My suggestion is simple: Be who you are.

Generally, atheists are modernistic and tend to respect clear thinking and firm foundations. If you can articulate your case against atheism and for theism, go for it. Sure, be respectful. But be steadfast and "rock-solid."

But if you are not philosophically inclined, just be yourself. Be your authentic, loving, praying, funny, forgiven, somewhat-together self.

OR, do I dare write this. Yes, why not:

Do both. Be strong and weak.

Be linear, clear, incisive, logical (if you can).

But also be vulnerable. Show your weakness, for that is where power is perfected.

When you are both weak and strong you'll have summarized in yourself the life and ministry of Jesus, who was limited to flesh and bones, murdered by mere mortals, but resurrected in kingly dominion.

Atheism part 8 (give or take): Reason vs. Superstition

One of my atheist friends accuses me of looking at the arguments for and against God from a biased standpoint, that is, through rose-colored glasses.

He thinks I presuppose God before the arguments are in. Such presupposing is called "begging the question," a known logical fallacy.

He further insists that if I were to examine the evidence and arguments from a neutral, unbiased viewpoint, I'd see that there are no good reasons to believe in God.

Note that unbiased is a demarcation word, a semantic blade that severs the wide-eyed believer from rational (unbiased) modern man.

Cool reason thus keeps its distance from blind faith.

But two can play at this game. 

I ask my friend for some criteria that, if met, would guarantee that his judgements are neutral and objective.

In response, my friend provides a series of "criteria for belief." One is this, which I shall call "X":

   We should always keep in the front of our minds a demand for compelling evidence in support of any claim or assertion.

But of course X itself is a claim for which we should demand "compelling evidence."

So I am not so impressed with my friend's call for objectivity. It's a much tougher ideal to attain than he thinks.

Neither should you be impressed with the cold confidence of your cousin or nephew or next-door neighbor who's newly declared himself an atheist in order to take up the fight of "unbiased" reason against religious superstition.