|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Atheism & Apologetics
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
With the increasing prominence and influence of the New Atheism, my guess is that UK (and maybe US) Christians would find themselves having to focus more on apologetics than evangelism in engaging with non-believers.
In saying this, I don't mean to imply that apologetics and evangelism are mutually exclusive, but that more time and effort might need to be invested in combatting New Atheist rhetoric and negative perceptions of Christianity.
What are other Shipmates' thoughts and experiences on what is happening?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that apologetics needs to make way for polemics. When trying to answer the usual atheist accusations, naturally put in a way slanted to their agenda, we're in danger of taking our eyes off of focus on Christ, and to dance to their tune rather than to his.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Well, yes, engaging atheists directly does run the risk of answering a variation on the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?", but I haven't seen much of that in the apologetic works I've read. Whether you're debating with atheists or addressing the public, the aim might be broadly the same: appealing to the floating voter rather than directly answering the opposition, to use a political analogy.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rafin
Apprentice
# 17713
|
Posted
I have lost my faith in religion gradually over the years. I still have a belief in God for the most part though.
One of the biggest things that drove me away from religion was the hypocrisy. To see people who spoke with very little compassion, patience or understanding speaking about morality and faith in a way they completely contradict.
To someone with more secular based thinking this blows holes into the faithful's argument. For if they truly possessed the truth and knowledge of God, they should at least be able to mirror it to some degree. If i can't even have faith in the goodness of God's servant, how can i have faith in his goodness?
When i speak with people that rekindle my desire for god, it is usually not because of how well they know the bible, or how much of a martyr they claim to be. It's simply because they are a person that shows true kindness, compassion and love. It's not about telling man how to be good, but showing him how.
I will note that whatever someone believes is ok in my book. I don't think any of us KNOW more than anyone else. I don't have a problem with religion in general. I simply don't like people who hate and claim that it is good and holy.
So thats my two cents on the start of the Christian approach. Lead with love.
Posts: 21 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I've aware of on the evangelical side Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry web site run by Matt Slick. Though I suspect a lot of Christians on the ship would find themselves declared non-Christians by it.
His daughter, Rachel Slick, recently openly declared herself an atheist so it doesn't seem to be too effective.
On the Catholic side is Strange Notions which aims to engage with atheists and defend Christianity (and in particular the Catholic version).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rafin
Apprentice
# 17713
|
Posted
Also, to clarify, I am not saying you can't get frustrated, or stumble in your argument. You don't have to be perfect. Just open minded and as non-judgmental as possible. Thats what I am receptive to anyway.
Posts: 21 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
One of the reasons there is, I am very pleased to say:), much more atheism about these days is because people know so very much more about how and why things happen and not one of those things is caused by God/god/s.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Isaac David! Ey up! ´ow´ve yer bin? My youngest son - 26 - loves John Lennox and for me the appalling William Lane Craig. I eschew apologetics nowadays but just remembered that nearly 20 years ago when this interweb thing started I was completely addicted to Glenn Miller´s Christian Think Tank.
So yes, it has its place if one is looking for analytical, intellectual reasons to believe.
However I can´t think that there is any substitute for following Jesus as the first Francis is claimed (about the same time) to have recognised.
I can find no one to do that with. You?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men; for some reason, many US atheists see through a Protestant lens, so think all Christians do like wise; they are often philosophically naive/clumsy - see Dawkins.
So I wonder if it's worth it. I guess it is with the intelligent and non-ignorant ones; on the other hand, it can become very intellectual. I'm not sure this is worthwhile.
[ 21. July 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the reasons there is, I am very pleased to say:), much more atheism about these days is because people know so very much more about how and why things happen and not one of those things is caused by God/god/s.
How do you know there is more atheism about?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
Recently I did some work on this through the lens of fresh expressions. There they were suggesting that inviting people to share in a lifestyle involving Jesus, and using an approach more similar to spiritual direction than apologetics, were better ways of engaging with most agnostics/atheists than confrontational apologetics. This seems sound to me, with the proviso that we need apologetics and debates to provide a plausibility structure for Christianity in the public consciousness.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
My difficulty debating with many atheists is indeed their ignorance, and not just of religion. So few seem to understand that what science is leading us to deny is not the existence of God, it's the reality of the self acting through time, which they all continue to behave as though they are.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
With the increasing prominence and influence of the New Atheism,
As they say on XKCD 'citation please!' ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Six types of atheists
Andrew Brown article on the six types
quote:
The largest group (37%) was what I would call "cultural non-believers", and what they call "academic" or "intellectual atheists": people who are well-educated, interested in religion, informed about it, but not themselves believers. I call them "cultural" because they are at home in a secular culture which takes as axiomatic that exclusive religious truth claims must be false. ...
They are more than twice as common as the "anti-theists" whose characteristics hardly need spelling out here...
these people made up only 14% of their sample, and all other research that I know of would place their proportion much lower.
The Dawkins approach to belief isn't that prevalent. Sympathetic people who just don't accept exclusive religious truth claims seem to be much more common.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Jade Constable
The OP implies there is 'more atheism' and I agree, since, for instance, far more radio presenters, comedy programmes, etc assume that their listeners are of the general, of-course-there's-no-God opinion.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
A good scientist would immediately spot the flaws in concluding much based on that data. ("Data" for want of a better word).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far - a special 'hi' to Martin.
My question was prompted while reading a collection of sermons entitled The Unknown God*, edited by Revd. John Hughes, Fellow and Dean of Chapel at Jesus College, Cambridge. In his introduction, he writes that the series of sermons
quote:
arose out of a perception that, on the one hand, many agnostic undergraduates had acquired a new contempt for and lack of understanding of religion, due to the remarkable reach of the New Atheists' arguments, and also that many Christian students felt ill-equipped to respond intelligently to such criticisms of their faith.
I cannot cite the source of this perception, though I suspect it arises out of his experience as a university chaplain. In any case, that is my source, Louise, meagre though it is. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I agree with the point made in various ways, that apologetics (or polemics) is unlikely to convince atheists or agnostics, and that a faith built on intellectual foundations may prove rather fragile, though I like Jenn's reference to apologetics 'providing a plausibility structure for Christianity in the public consciousness', a point made rather more prosaically by Rowan Williams in a 20ll interview, that 'argument has the role of damage limitation.'
I agree wholeheartedly with Rafin's point that loving our neighbour (and our enemy) would be a more salient 'argument' for Christian faith, but that still leaves open the question of how Christians engage collectively with the contemporary mindset, if at all! William Lane Craig's desire to train a cadre of Christian philosophers is intriguing, but I am struck by the thought that to engage with contemporary intellectual currents might also require us to become historians, scientists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists, as well as theologians. I've probably missed quite a few other useful professions off that list.
* ISBN: 9781610975797 if you want to check it out at your favourite online bookstore.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jade Constable
The OP implies there is 'more atheism' and I agree, since, for instance, far more radio presenters, comedy programmes, etc assume that their listeners are of the general, of-course-there's-no-God opinion.
Are we being location-specific here? While I would agree that this is probably the case in the UK, I wouldn't think that this is the case worldwide. Also, I would think that people are more open about their atheism nowadays, without that meaning that there are necessarily more atheists in existence. There have always been atheists, they just haven't always been able to be open about it.
Regarding the UK only, in my experience most people are agnostic and open to religion/spirituality rather than definitely atheistic. I suppose what we mean by atheist has an impact here too - can someone follow their horoscope and be an atheist? Does atheism mean no belief in the supernatural at all, or just a lack of belief in a deity?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
One more citation, from Salon (missed the edit window).
[ 21. July 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: Isaac David ]
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hi Isaac David, you asked specifically about "New Atheism" - the Richard Dawkins style obsessed-with being-hostile-to-religion variant. Neither of those links isolate that and give figures for it in distinction to other sorts of atheism. There's no point treating people who are happy to support their local church even if they don't believe or who are sympathetic to others practising faith as if they are Richard Dawkins, they'd be bemused as they don't share most of his positions. It may be hard to get reliable research, but it's important to understand that not all non-believers believe the same things.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Cross-posted - The Salon link claims to be about the 'new atheists' but isn't. Is this a pond difference? I understand it to refer to self-identifying 'New Atheists' who follow a line very similar to Richard Dawkins?
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Hi Louise
Both the Washington Post and Salon articles reference polls which indicate a rise in numbers of atheists of all varieties, but then draw the implication that some of this will be due to the New Atheism espoused by Richard Dawkins et al.
The Fact Check Blog only cites the polls about atheist numbers without drawing implications, though the book I cited previously does refer to the influence of the New Atheism on students in the UK, from which one might draw similar implications, but I am not aware of specific figures for New Atheists.
I suppose it's possible that the New Atheism is purely a media phenomenon, in which case it may fade away in time. OTOH, political pundits sometimes refer to the 'Westminster bubble' which distorts the significance of political events, but there's a whole industry built around it which shows little sign of evaporating.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I've not had a chance to test this approach out, but my general tendency would be to explain my basic belief in a Deity from a strictly personal, psychological standpoint, to wit: For me the existence of a Prime Mover - an essential Creative Energy - is a kind of mental aesthetic necessity. I would then go on to explain a bit more why I find that to be the case - strictly from my own standpoint (more or less the question of why there is anything rather than nothing at all, and what nothing would really mean -- not just emptiness but the absence even of emptiness: imagine all universes and all dimensions folding in on themselves, if you can, and blinking out entirely). I would then perhaps go on to explain that I personally don't find the old deist clock-maker analogy to work, why that's the case (the clock-maker can't have just made the rudiments of the clock and started it running, because the continued existence of the clock depends on the clock-maker actually being within the clock itself, otherwise it cease to exist). Subjectively for me, God can't be "out there somewhere", separate from the Creation. I find that it only makes sense to me from an aesthetic standpoint if God is at once immanent and transcedent.
I would only then talk about how I get from this general Theism to a general Christian belief and praxis. I would not be making exclusive truth claims. I would talk about my own motivations, which include cultural and even ideological-value aspects. I would talk about why and how I see and experience Christianity as valuable, fully acknowledging both the manifold failures of religious institutions, as well as my hopes for a Christianity focussed on social justice, political and economic liberation, inclusiveness, radical welcome.
I'd be happy to give my take on the core and classical doctrines of historical, orthodox Christianity, completely acknowledging what I find doctrinally difficult and my own questioning and uncertainty. I think humility in such apologetics is essential.
What I would hope to accomplish from this would be to convey a friendly, humble religiosity that can be seen as functional in the individual life grappling with existential issues, and which can be seen as potentially have social utility if we stay focused on the important teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
I realise all this doesn't sound very evangelical, and to many people probably hopelessly liberal, uninspiring and even not very Christian. Still, I think it might be the best way of responding to modern atheists.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graham J
Apprentice
# 505
|
Posted
I've recently been reading books by Brian McLaren that have given me a new perspective on evangelism/apologetics.
I also enjoyed reading Francis Spufford's book: Unapologetic.
--------------------
GJ
Posts: 46 | From: Örebro, Sweden | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graham J
Apprentice
# 505
|
Posted
I've recently been reading books by Brian McLaren that have given me a new perspective on evangelism/apologetics.
I also enjoyed reading Francis Spufford's book: Unapologetic.
--------------------
GJ
Posts: 46 | From: Örebro, Sweden | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
My difficulty debating with many atheists is indeed their ignorance, and not just of religion. So few seem to understand that what science is leading us to deny is not the existence of God, it's the reality of the self acting through time, which they all continue to behave as though they are.
Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods.
You will probably continue to have difficulty debating with atheists if you are ignorant of what atheism is. Also see below re Pew Forum survey of religious knowledge.
As to the reality of self - AFAIK science is suggesting that self is simply a story we tell ourselves to accommodate a reactive construct which is dependant upon our environment.
quote:
According to quetzalcoatl Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men; for some reason, many US atheists see through a Protestant lens, so think all Christians do like wise; they are often philosophically naive/clumsy - see Dawkins.
So I wonder if it's worth it. I guess it is with the intelligent and non-ignorant ones; on the other hand, it can become very intellectual. I'm not sure this is worthwhile.
If religious people wish every atheist to be an expert on religion, bearing in mind that most have jobs, families etc., perhaps they should arrange that religion (or even just that sub-set known as Christianity) gets its act together and decides what it is. You refer to this yourself when suggesting that not all US christians see through a protestant lens. Until christians agree on the dimensions/curvature of the lens they really can’t complain about the fact that outsiders can’t address the particular degrees of myopia about which insiders (sometimes violently)squabble.
That said – the evidence, in the US at least, is summarized in
U. S. Religious Knowledge Survey
as “Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions”.
Perhaps you are unaware of The Courtier's Reply (unable to link but easily found) which points out that saying that one needs to be an expert on tailoring to know whether the emperor is wearing any clothes is an attempt to impose an irrelevant argument from authority by requiring expertise in a field of knowledge which is immaterial (sorry - I can resist anything but temptation).
The proper, relevant and inescapable initial discussion is not about any individual Christian's/Muslim's/Hindu's etc. etc. etc. particular belief - it is about the fundamental basis of religion - that there is a super (extra?) nature. Demonstrate that such a state exists and you can all proffer your preferred set of clothes. Until then it is, very probably, just so much parading of bare flesh.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion
I like debating with atheists from time, but my biggest problem has been that my opponents seemed ignorant about science and logic.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion
I like debating with atheists from time, but my biggest problem has been that my opponents seemed ignorant about science and logic.
Yes, that's rather quixotic, but common. There are also some who confuse science with philosophy.
It's also a question of tone. I used to be naive, and would argue with anti-theists dripping with scorn and snark. What was I hoping to achieve? I was served up on a platter like John the Baptist.
So I filter these dingbats out now, no point in engagement. There are some atheists not like that, and some even, who are interested in religion, and of course, some who are 'not sure'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men;
Funny thing, drop the a and the statement is still true.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men;
Funny thing, drop the a and the statement is still true.
Now I get to tu quoque your tu quoque.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Debate is a thankless, sterile adversarial task period.
Did Jesus do it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men; for some reason,
It isn't just atheists that do this - it's people who are bad at arguing. It's virtually all people who are bad at arguing. When I was first becoming interested in Christianity, some evangelicals gave me a book "exposing what was wrong with atheism" and all it did was set up a horrible caricature of atheists as all complete arrogant amoral scumbags. This is not a good way to reach out to a new Christian whose entire family are atheists, as are almost all of her friends. I'm pretty sure it was actually aimed at committed Christians who wanted to be reaffirmed in their own prejudices - as so many books are. So yeah both sides are doing the slinging dirt at the other side thing.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I agree, but this thread is about atheists, isn't it? I have given up discussing stuff with fundies and some evangelicals for the same reason, that they purvey nonsense and illogicality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl:
Although the thread could be drifting into a discussion about atheists, what I had in mind when I wrote the OP was the perception in some quarters that the tub-thumping variety of anti-theism associated with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others, and popularly known as the New Atheism, is queering the pitch for evangelism. In the case of Cambridge University, undergraduates who might, in previous generations, have been more open to the gospel, are arriving at university parroting arguments absorbed from various New Atheist books and websites, quite possibly without realising the dubious nature of some of those arguments.
I don't know whether this experience is being replicated outside the university setting, but if it is, then a similar apologetic response to that mounted by John Hughes might help to limit the damage by demolishing some of the more egregious claims touted by the New Atheists. OTOH, the environment may have become so hostile, that, as Fr. Gregory suggested in the past, we may have to wait at least a generation before we can get a hearing in some quarters.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
As far as I know, the term 'New Atheism' is one coined by believers to mock us atheists. The response to this might well be that (New) Atheists' mockn religious beliefs, but the difference is they replace religious dogma with naturalistic/scientific (I'm always a bit worried when using these words since one of the discussions a while back:)), and better, explanations. In any case, as HughWRM says above, atheists have only one guaranteed thing in comon - a lack of belief in any gods at all, not just all except one. The one thing that would immediately change all atheists to theists is a provable god. And, Yes, I know no-one can actually 100% prove the non-existence of God, but I think I'll avoid going round that circle too!
If only the structure of the church, particularly the CofE here, could be retained without the God belief.
Jade Constable
Yes, I was talking of UK and, yes, people are certainly more open and assured about their atheism now and the census showed that the number of people ticking a non-belief box has jumped up quite a bit.
I often wonder what it wouldh have been like to be an atheist in early human times! I bet there were quite a few who'd already moved towards a realisation that natural things happened whether humans prayed or sacrificed things or not.
I'm sure many atheists read their horoscopes, but I hope most of them know for certain it's only for fun!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
....quite possibly without realising the dubious nature of some of those arguments.
Could you cite one or two, please?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As far as I know, the term 'New Atheism' is one coined by believers to mock us atheists. The response to this might well be that (New) Atheists' mockn religious beliefs, but the difference is they replace religious dogma with naturalistic/scientific (I'm always a bit worried when using these words since one of the discussions a while back:)), and better, explanations. In any case, as HughWRM says above, atheists have only one guaranteed thing in comon - a lack of belief in any gods at all, not just all except one. The one thing that would immediately change all atheists to theists is a provable god. And, Yes, I know no-one can actually 100% prove the non-existence of God, but I think I'll avoid going round that circle too!
If only the structure of the church, particularly the CofE here, could be retained without the God belief.
Jade Constable
Yes, I was talking of UK and, yes, people are certainly more open and assured about their atheism now and the census showed that the number of people ticking a non-belief box has jumped up quite a bit.
I often wonder what it wouldh have been like to be an atheist in early human times! I bet there were quite a few who'd already moved towards a realisation that natural things happened whether humans prayed or sacrificed things or not.
I'm sure many atheists read their horoscopes, but I hope most of them know for certain it's only for fun!
I haven't heard the term 'new atheists' used in a mocking way, rather in one which describes those who are anti-the whole concept of God to the extent that they arrogantly think that they can educate people out of it and consign religion to history. There's not usually any malice intended on either side. Some mock religion, particularly those comedians you mention, but then mockery is par for the course for religious people, as is persecution etc. The sad thing is that those ignorant of religion might think that the caricatures created by the mockers and persecutors are somewhere near the truth, as per the topic of the thread.
When you say that religion is replaced by 'better explanations', you imply that religion is about explaining things. Christianity isn't. It's about relationship with the living God. Atheists might continue to try to explain this away, but for those of it for which it is a reality of life, it is not going to disappear.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Debate is a thankless, sterile adversarial task period.
Did Jesus do it?
There weren't any atheists to debate with, it seems, but Jesus did expose the errors of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He doesn't appear to have changed their minds, but the people heard Him gladly. Debating with atheists, whether New or not, may indeed be a sterile task in that they will not be moved from their conviction that theism is false, but the 'people' who observe from the sidelines might benefit from hearing our side of the issue. Or maybe not, as I have said. What did Justin Martyr hope to achieve with his Dialogues, for example? Those are the thoughts behind my inquiry.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's about relationship with the living God. Atheists might continue to try to explain this away, but for those of it for which it is a reality of life, it is not going to disappear.
Perhaps I find it harder to wave away the atheist arguments because my response to this is (and I think I nicked this from Adeodatus) "is that so? Then it wouldn't kill him to pick up the phone once in a while."
It's never felt like a relationship to me. More a desperate hope.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
My suspicion is that books are generally used to reinforce the point of view that people have already. What can influence someone to convert is getting to know someone with those beliefs, and discovering that you respect the intelligence of that person and find something about them that you admire and want for yourself.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Graham J:
I've recently been reading books by Brian McLaren that have given me a new perspective on evangelism/apologetics.
I also enjoyed reading Francis Spufford's book: Unapologetic.
I was planning to mention Francis Spufford's Unapologetic myself. I enjoyed reading it very much. It's subtitled: "Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense."
He addresses--with humour but also with depth--the doubts of today's intelligent agnostic or atheist--or of any of us on some days. He's not trying to prove anything but just explaining why Christianity makes sense to him--and primarily on emotional grounds. And he shows that emotional grounds for one's life orientation are not to be dismissed.
"Emotions are also our indispensable tool for navigating, for feeling our way through, the much larger domain of stuff that isn't susceptible to proof or disproof, that isn't checkable against the physical universe."
As he says, science is never going to give us the basis to make secure judgements about things like justice or mercy--works of the human imagination. Literature and music, dreams, hopes, sorrows--all this is our emotional life and hugely important.
He had a direct experience of mercy from something, somewhere that was so powerful, it affected him profoundly. The emotion, he says, came before the intellectual assent to any Christian propositions.
Hard to explain this book--will sound touchy-feely but actually is argued (IMO) with intellectual rigour and aimed at people who like to think deeply about these things.
Don't know if Graham J or others who had read it will agree with this description of the book but anyway it's an excellent read for anyone interested in contemporary apologetics--or non-apologetics, he does call it "Unapologetic " on purpose!
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Acknowledged Isaac David. I suppose I was thinking of the usual tennis matches that play to an exhausting draw. Like William Lane Craig taking on the mantle of Augustine (eight and a half million ...), Anselm and Kalam (... ´words´). Whereas Jesus used startling rhetoric predicated on completely radical inclusive humanist premisses. Premisses that all liberal atheists embrace more than the majority of Christians.
I´ve gone past the point of caring to engage with atheism and in fact, a la Peter Rollins, embrace it. As Jesus did on the cross. I want to unite with atheists and Muslims (not for the first time, having seen the superb Mehdi Hassan Oxford Debate on Is Islam a Violent Religion a couple of weeks ago) and others being moved by the Spirit poured out on ALL flesh. Even Christians.
As so many have said here, I´m looking for the alternative to words. If I have to engage with atheism it surely must be by embracing it, agreeing with it, ´me too´ and then radically topping it, seeing it and raising it with Jesus.
Just like He did. As for opposing evil in His religion, yeah that too. That´s part of agreeing with atheism. To win them for Christ
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
When I try to have a debate with atheists (also on the Ship), my experience is often that they claim to hold a scientific position, but they don't seem to grasp some very basic things about what Science exactly is. Repeatedly these debates end up at a point where I find myself in the position where I have to argue some of the very basic tenets of Science to them, for example what constitutes a scientific explanation. Already a couple of times I caught myself thinking about my opponent in terms of "Hello? You're the one who claims to defend Science here ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) "
I have to say that I find this increasingly tedious, and I'm losing my interest in these debates a bit.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And Isaac David, I agree, I suppose the audience need to see that ´our boy done good´ in a scrap, but it´s so ... second rate. I love boxing too. So Greco-Roman. A polished turd.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
LeRoc put his finger on it, debating with atheists is so damn boring and tedi....zzz.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
....quite possibly without realising the dubious nature of some of those arguments.
Could you cite one or two, please?
I don't want to de-rail the thread, so I'll try to be brief. First, LeRoc has already made the point about those atheists who quote:
claim to hold a scientific position, but they don't seem to grasp some very basic things about what Science exactly is.
Second, there are the historical arguments about the evils of religion in general and Christianity in particular. An excellent critical examination be can be found in Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart (ISBN 9780300164299), which exposes their ineptitude.
Third, a particular favourite of mine, the comedienne Kate Smurthwaite who jokes here that
quote:
Faith, by definition, is believing in things without evidence and, personally, I don't do that, because I'm not an idiot.
Funny and insulting as it is, no doubt, intended to be, it simply parrots a simplistic argument about faith frequently made by Richard Dawkins. It might be interesting to explore the question of the relationship between faith and evidence (and rational thought), but I hope you will forgive me if I decline to do so here, for the reason I've already stated.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
debating with atheists is so damn boring
Debating with anyone, including other Christians, can be boring. One reason why I've been away from the Ship these last few years.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, but this thread is about atheists, isn't it? I agree that debates with tons of people are boring, but call me simple, I thought that we were discussing debating with atheists, not Christians, and not anyone.
This thread has grown more tu quoques than my French beans are producing flowers and beans, no doubt because of the hot weather. And all the little tu quoques are now producing little tu quoquelets.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread has grown more tu quoques than my French beans are producing flowers and beans, no doubt because of the hot weather. And all the little tu quoques are now producing little tu quoquelets.
But it is the nature of people which cause the problems in the debates, not the nature of atheism. So, limit the debate if you will to one side of that fence, but the essential problem is in an entirely different pasture.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
