Response to Trinity Radio's "10 Questions for Atheists"
Braxton Hunter of Trinity Radio posted a video, “10 Questions for Atheists”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1SDYPaUNiY&lc
Braxton acknowledges many of these kinds of questions by theists are merely “gotcha” questions and the person asking the questions isn’t really looking for answers. But he insists he is honestly interested in honest answers. I am thankful that he admits most of these kinds of question lists are not genuine. I will take him at his word that he wants to see our answers.
I first found Braxton’s video via Noel Plum’s excellent response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzfIggtoJnw
Noel did such a great job that perhaps my meager addition to the conversation may be of limited value. But, while I liked Noel’s response, there are at least some things that I feel slightly differently so I am doing my own response.
I am providing a quick summary of his questions. But I acknowledge that my summaries do not do his full elaboration justice and suggest referring to his original video for full context.
1. He lists some things about reality that he thinks are better explained by the Christian worldview than any atheistic worldview. He then asks, what about reality that the viewer (in my case, me) believe are better explained by their worldview?
You say you can explain some elements of our shared reality better with the Christian worldview, but I disagree. For sample, start with “universal supernatural claims.” Does your God do miracles for believers of other religions? If so why? Wouldn't that help bolster the other religions? Or do other religions make them up?But if other religions make up their claims, why should I not think Christians also do? Like Noel said, it is suspicious that God only did miracles in ancient times. But more than that, EVERYBODY'S God did miracles in ancient times, but NOBODY’S God does miracles today. Seems a lot more explainable without God.
You can’t explain “Free Will” either. It simply cannot exist whether there is a God or not. If there is a God, he created everything that goes into your alleged free will. Your personality, your desires, your weaknesses. My question to you is, what exactly is outside of the direct control of an Omniscient, Omnipotent entity? By definition: nothing. By definition. Thus, free will cannot exist in your world view. And some Christians like Calvinists agree with me by the way.
As far as NDE’s, I suggest you read Keith Augustine’s “Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" on the Secular Web. Children who have them see LIVING relatives, LIVING pets. People in other cultures see different gods. And NDE’s can be induced in the laboratory. They are completely explainable in my worldview as nothing more than dreams.
As far as the “rapid expansion of the early church”, you should read The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark. Basically, Christianity's expansion was fairly slow until Constantine converted and made it the state religion. Well, technically it was the emperor after Constantine who made it official, but Constantine made it the de facto state religion. There, I’ve explained it. Your worldview actually fails to explain what in fact actually happened.
As far as the “events surrounding the life and death of Jesus”, well, I suggest you read Richard Carrier’s Jesus From Outer Space. He proposes that Jesus didn’t even exist. But, put that aside and assume there was some Jesus. Okay, well you still know NOTHING about him. Nothing in the Gospels can be considered reliable. They are zero evidence. And Paul says very little about Jesus’ alleged earthly life and talks primarily in spiritual terms. Paul also never claimed to have seen Jesus except in a vision. So, Paul is USELESS for telling anything about Jesus earthly life even if he did exist. (Carrier’s book explains in more detail exactly why the Gospels and Paul are useless as far as documenting some actual Jesus Christ.) Thus, I have nothing to explain because you have NOTHING.
As far as “shared longing for purpose” I suppose maybe you have a bit of an edge as to the explanatory power of your world-view. But, to me, it just seems to be a result of the evolution of consciousness.
As far as what Christianity DOESN’T answer, well, the fact that it can be molded into answering anything means it answers nothing. Like if we agree that evolution is true, well, you can say that’s the way God did it. If hypothetically we say that evolution is false, you again can say that’s the way God did it. If your hypothesis answers ANYTHING equally well, it really answers nothing.
2. If I say that I merely lack belief in God, rather than disbelieve in God, is that really accurate? Don’t I really actively disbelieve in God?
Mostly N/A for me, as I personally do believe and do state gods likely do not exist. That said, to be honest, I agree with you that most people who say they merely lack a belief in God at least suspect there is no God. I cannot speak for others so I could be wrong. But I suspect so.
3. Sometimes former Christians change their morals when they de-convert. Even if I did not personally de-convert “in order to sin”, can I at least acknowledge that it might appear that I did?
This is also mostly N/A for me, as when I was a Christian, I was a “liberal Christian” and did not change my morals that much when I de-converted. I suppose that you could be right, that for those ex-believers that do change their morals, it might look like that their desire to change morals played a part in their de-conversion. Isn't this the problem of the person making the judgement about why someone de-converted? Why is it mine? Or even why is it the problem of the person who did change their morals? What business is it to anybody else? (Follow up in question 8)
4. If I say that I merely lack belief in God, what do I think the probabilities are? Is it a 50/50 proposition? 60/40? 70/30? At what point does it stop being merely lack of belief and actually an active disbelief?
Same answer as #2 -- N/A. I assert that I do not believe gods exist. As far as percentages, well, I don’t claim to have certainty. I accept that there is some small chance I could be wrong. I hate to put a percentage on what I think the chances are that I’m wrong. But, if I had to put a number on it, I would have to say less than 1% chance a personal God exists. Less than one in a million actually.
5. In very brief, he basically asks, “doesn’t the Cosmological argument have at least a little bit of validity?”
When I was a theist, I thought so. Now I don’t think so, not the slightest bit. While I agree with what Noel said, that if there is a God, it is mind-boggling. If there is no God, it is mind-boggling. But to me the bigger issue is the fact that every “problem” you raise with non-theistic origins of the universe, God has the exact same problem but Christians “special plead” it away .Like if an atheist were to propose, “the universe came from nothing”, the theist might say, “aha, that’s impossible”. But, actually, that’s what theists believe. Creation ex nihilo. Creation from nothing. How does God do it? Because he can. Special pleading. I don’t claim to know where the universe came from. I doubt I could understand it no matter what the answer is. But God has zero explanatory power so “I have no need for that hypothesis”. (Pierre-Simon Laplace)
6. Is there any theist/Christian argument that I find at least a little persuasive? Give me at least a little bit of pause?
I would say that in my past, I would have called the Cosmological Argument one worth considering. Today, no. There is no theistic argument that I know of that gives me any moment of pause. (Though I agree with Noel Plum that mortality sucks.)
7. What evidence would I accept that Christianity is true?
I have heard some atheists say, “I don’t know what would convince me. But God would know what it would take, and he has failed to provide it to me.” To be honest, that sounds like a cop-out. Shouldn’t we atheists have at least some general concept of an answer to give to this question? But, yet, to me, the question is almost like asking me, “What would convince me that reality isn’t real”. I honestly don’t know how to answer it.
I have heard some atheists claim that “the supernatural is impossible by definition. If it exists it is natural”. I do NOT agree with this. But what I do say is, the supernatural, if it does exist, is impossible for me to know. I only have natural senses. The only thing you can give me is pieces of natural evidence and propose that if I can’t explain it naturalistically, then it must be supernatural. Well no. If I can’t explain something, that doesn’t mean it was supernatural. That said, I will say that maybe if something happened that was just so extreme that I personally find impossible to explain, it could possibly convince me. Say the moon were to take a hard left turn, head straight for earth, touch the tip of the Empire State Building, and turn around and return to its orbit, I might find that to be a sign from God. But someone else could legitimately say, “well, we need to see what naturalistic causes might have done that”. This may not be the best answer, but it is the best I got.
8.(Related to question 3) If I did change my moral perspective on de-conversion, am I sure that isn’t just what I wanted to be true? Shouldn’t I be concerned more with truth than whether it is what I like?
At least in my case, you have it completely backwards -- I didn’t de-convert to give me an excuse to change my morals -- it was that I already had morals and I could not find a way to fit Christianity into my morality. As I said, I was a “liberal Christian”. I personally am very moral by general Christian standards. I’m straight. Been married for 30 years, to the opposite sex. I use NO intoxicants, don’t drink, smoke, or use drugs. However, prior to my de-conversion, I did in fact wrestle with what I perceived as the “fundamentalist” perspective. Does God really condemn homosexuality? Does God really send people to hell? And yes, the fact that I couldn’t stomach the “fundamentalist perspective” had a big impact on my de-conversion. But it wasn’t that I wanted to personally engage in a hedonistic lifestyle. It was more like I couldn’t believe that a moral God would send people to hell. I couldn’t believe that a moral God would make people gay and then punish them for it. So, as I said, you have it backwards, I didn’t de-convert to give me an excuse to change my morals. It was that I was already was more moral than Christianity and thus the religion had to go.
9. What were the last three scholarly apologetics have I read? Or, do I even read scholarly apologetics? Maybe just popular press or maybe just YouTube perhaps? In short, am I really informed on the best Christian arguments?
It may be true that most of the apologetics that I read would be “popular” level books like Lee Strobel. My handle, in fact, is a play on Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith as that was the last apologetic I read before concluding Christianity is nonsense. So, I’ve read all of “The Case For…” series.As far as scholarly, I’m not sure what would count. Maybe Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen. Maybe How Now Shall We Live by Charles Colson. Maybe Scaling the Secular City by JP Moreland. Or Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Now, what were the last three scholarly counter-apologetics did you read? And the last three Muslim apologetics you read? The last three Buddhist apologetics you read? Hindu? Australian aborigine religion apologetics? The fact is, I’ve read more than enough of your side’s complete crap and am under no obligation to read any of it and regret that I wasted one second reading any. Furthermore, your question basically makes the leading insinuation that atheists are just ignorant of your side. Well son, no we aren’t. Got it? (This question kind-of pissed me off.)
10. If I became convinced Christianity is true, would I follow Jesus Christ?
I basically have the same answer as Noel Plum. I’ve heard some atheists say they would be happy burning in hell knowing they are more moral than God. Well, I don’t personally have that kind of strength. If I really believed that eternal torment awaits, I would do as I thought was required of me. But you see, this really lays bare the emptiness of Christianity. This is ALL YOU HAVE .You have a threat of damnation, and NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING else. ZERO. Fortunately, your threats are equally as empty as your "apologetics".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1SDYPaUNiY&lc
Braxton acknowledges many of these kinds of questions by theists are merely “gotcha” questions and the person asking the questions isn’t really looking for answers. But he insists he is honestly interested in honest answers. I am thankful that he admits most of these kinds of question lists are not genuine. I will take him at his word that he wants to see our answers.
I first found Braxton’s video via Noel Plum’s excellent response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzfIggtoJnw
Noel did such a great job that perhaps my meager addition to the conversation may be of limited value. But, while I liked Noel’s response, there are at least some things that I feel slightly differently so I am doing my own response.
I am providing a quick summary of his questions. But I acknowledge that my summaries do not do his full elaboration justice and suggest referring to his original video for full context.
1. He lists some things about reality that he thinks are better explained by the Christian worldview than any atheistic worldview. He then asks, what about reality that the viewer (in my case, me) believe are better explained by their worldview?
You say you can explain some elements of our shared reality better with the Christian worldview, but I disagree. For sample, start with “universal supernatural claims.” Does your God do miracles for believers of other religions? If so why? Wouldn't that help bolster the other religions? Or do other religions make them up?But if other religions make up their claims, why should I not think Christians also do? Like Noel said, it is suspicious that God only did miracles in ancient times. But more than that, EVERYBODY'S God did miracles in ancient times, but NOBODY’S God does miracles today. Seems a lot more explainable without God.
You can’t explain “Free Will” either. It simply cannot exist whether there is a God or not. If there is a God, he created everything that goes into your alleged free will. Your personality, your desires, your weaknesses. My question to you is, what exactly is outside of the direct control of an Omniscient, Omnipotent entity? By definition: nothing. By definition. Thus, free will cannot exist in your world view. And some Christians like Calvinists agree with me by the way.
As far as NDE’s, I suggest you read Keith Augustine’s “Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" on the Secular Web. Children who have them see LIVING relatives, LIVING pets. People in other cultures see different gods. And NDE’s can be induced in the laboratory. They are completely explainable in my worldview as nothing more than dreams.
As far as the “rapid expansion of the early church”, you should read The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark. Basically, Christianity's expansion was fairly slow until Constantine converted and made it the state religion. Well, technically it was the emperor after Constantine who made it official, but Constantine made it the de facto state religion. There, I’ve explained it. Your worldview actually fails to explain what in fact actually happened.
As far as the “events surrounding the life and death of Jesus”, well, I suggest you read Richard Carrier’s Jesus From Outer Space. He proposes that Jesus didn’t even exist. But, put that aside and assume there was some Jesus. Okay, well you still know NOTHING about him. Nothing in the Gospels can be considered reliable. They are zero evidence. And Paul says very little about Jesus’ alleged earthly life and talks primarily in spiritual terms. Paul also never claimed to have seen Jesus except in a vision. So, Paul is USELESS for telling anything about Jesus earthly life even if he did exist. (Carrier’s book explains in more detail exactly why the Gospels and Paul are useless as far as documenting some actual Jesus Christ.) Thus, I have nothing to explain because you have NOTHING.
As far as “shared longing for purpose” I suppose maybe you have a bit of an edge as to the explanatory power of your world-view. But, to me, it just seems to be a result of the evolution of consciousness.
As far as what Christianity DOESN’T answer, well, the fact that it can be molded into answering anything means it answers nothing. Like if we agree that evolution is true, well, you can say that’s the way God did it. If hypothetically we say that evolution is false, you again can say that’s the way God did it. If your hypothesis answers ANYTHING equally well, it really answers nothing.
2. If I say that I merely lack belief in God, rather than disbelieve in God, is that really accurate? Don’t I really actively disbelieve in God?
Mostly N/A for me, as I personally do believe and do state gods likely do not exist. That said, to be honest, I agree with you that most people who say they merely lack a belief in God at least suspect there is no God. I cannot speak for others so I could be wrong. But I suspect so.
3. Sometimes former Christians change their morals when they de-convert. Even if I did not personally de-convert “in order to sin”, can I at least acknowledge that it might appear that I did?
This is also mostly N/A for me, as when I was a Christian, I was a “liberal Christian” and did not change my morals that much when I de-converted. I suppose that you could be right, that for those ex-believers that do change their morals, it might look like that their desire to change morals played a part in their de-conversion. Isn't this the problem of the person making the judgement about why someone de-converted? Why is it mine? Or even why is it the problem of the person who did change their morals? What business is it to anybody else? (Follow up in question 8)
4. If I say that I merely lack belief in God, what do I think the probabilities are? Is it a 50/50 proposition? 60/40? 70/30? At what point does it stop being merely lack of belief and actually an active disbelief?
Same answer as #2 -- N/A. I assert that I do not believe gods exist. As far as percentages, well, I don’t claim to have certainty. I accept that there is some small chance I could be wrong. I hate to put a percentage on what I think the chances are that I’m wrong. But, if I had to put a number on it, I would have to say less than 1% chance a personal God exists. Less than one in a million actually.
5. In very brief, he basically asks, “doesn’t the Cosmological argument have at least a little bit of validity?”
When I was a theist, I thought so. Now I don’t think so, not the slightest bit. While I agree with what Noel said, that if there is a God, it is mind-boggling. If there is no God, it is mind-boggling. But to me the bigger issue is the fact that every “problem” you raise with non-theistic origins of the universe, God has the exact same problem but Christians “special plead” it away .Like if an atheist were to propose, “the universe came from nothing”, the theist might say, “aha, that’s impossible”. But, actually, that’s what theists believe. Creation ex nihilo. Creation from nothing. How does God do it? Because he can. Special pleading. I don’t claim to know where the universe came from. I doubt I could understand it no matter what the answer is. But God has zero explanatory power so “I have no need for that hypothesis”. (Pierre-Simon Laplace)
6. Is there any theist/Christian argument that I find at least a little persuasive? Give me at least a little bit of pause?
I would say that in my past, I would have called the Cosmological Argument one worth considering. Today, no. There is no theistic argument that I know of that gives me any moment of pause. (Though I agree with Noel Plum that mortality sucks.)
7. What evidence would I accept that Christianity is true?
I have heard some atheists say, “I don’t know what would convince me. But God would know what it would take, and he has failed to provide it to me.” To be honest, that sounds like a cop-out. Shouldn’t we atheists have at least some general concept of an answer to give to this question? But, yet, to me, the question is almost like asking me, “What would convince me that reality isn’t real”. I honestly don’t know how to answer it.
I have heard some atheists claim that “the supernatural is impossible by definition. If it exists it is natural”. I do NOT agree with this. But what I do say is, the supernatural, if it does exist, is impossible for me to know. I only have natural senses. The only thing you can give me is pieces of natural evidence and propose that if I can’t explain it naturalistically, then it must be supernatural. Well no. If I can’t explain something, that doesn’t mean it was supernatural. That said, I will say that maybe if something happened that was just so extreme that I personally find impossible to explain, it could possibly convince me. Say the moon were to take a hard left turn, head straight for earth, touch the tip of the Empire State Building, and turn around and return to its orbit, I might find that to be a sign from God. But someone else could legitimately say, “well, we need to see what naturalistic causes might have done that”. This may not be the best answer, but it is the best I got.
8.(Related to question 3) If I did change my moral perspective on de-conversion, am I sure that isn’t just what I wanted to be true? Shouldn’t I be concerned more with truth than whether it is what I like?
At least in my case, you have it completely backwards -- I didn’t de-convert to give me an excuse to change my morals -- it was that I already had morals and I could not find a way to fit Christianity into my morality. As I said, I was a “liberal Christian”. I personally am very moral by general Christian standards. I’m straight. Been married for 30 years, to the opposite sex. I use NO intoxicants, don’t drink, smoke, or use drugs. However, prior to my de-conversion, I did in fact wrestle with what I perceived as the “fundamentalist” perspective. Does God really condemn homosexuality? Does God really send people to hell? And yes, the fact that I couldn’t stomach the “fundamentalist perspective” had a big impact on my de-conversion. But it wasn’t that I wanted to personally engage in a hedonistic lifestyle. It was more like I couldn’t believe that a moral God would send people to hell. I couldn’t believe that a moral God would make people gay and then punish them for it. So, as I said, you have it backwards, I didn’t de-convert to give me an excuse to change my morals. It was that I was already was more moral than Christianity and thus the religion had to go.
9. What were the last three scholarly apologetics have I read? Or, do I even read scholarly apologetics? Maybe just popular press or maybe just YouTube perhaps? In short, am I really informed on the best Christian arguments?
It may be true that most of the apologetics that I read would be “popular” level books like Lee Strobel. My handle, in fact, is a play on Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith as that was the last apologetic I read before concluding Christianity is nonsense. So, I’ve read all of “The Case For…” series.As far as scholarly, I’m not sure what would count. Maybe Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen. Maybe How Now Shall We Live by Charles Colson. Maybe Scaling the Secular City by JP Moreland. Or Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Now, what were the last three scholarly counter-apologetics did you read? And the last three Muslim apologetics you read? The last three Buddhist apologetics you read? Hindu? Australian aborigine religion apologetics? The fact is, I’ve read more than enough of your side’s complete crap and am under no obligation to read any of it and regret that I wasted one second reading any. Furthermore, your question basically makes the leading insinuation that atheists are just ignorant of your side. Well son, no we aren’t. Got it? (This question kind-of pissed me off.)
10. If I became convinced Christianity is true, would I follow Jesus Christ?
I basically have the same answer as Noel Plum. I’ve heard some atheists say they would be happy burning in hell knowing they are more moral than God. Well, I don’t personally have that kind of strength. If I really believed that eternal torment awaits, I would do as I thought was required of me. But you see, this really lays bare the emptiness of Christianity. This is ALL YOU HAVE .You have a threat of damnation, and NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING else. ZERO. Fortunately, your threats are equally as empty as your "apologetics".