How to improve unbelief

How to improve the argument for unbelief.

"Hatred of mind, of pride, courage, freedom,...hatred of the sense, of the joy of the senses, of joy in general is Christian."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

"Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it."

- George Bernard Shaw

There are two characteristics within the typical writings of atheists and agnostics that always flag a believer's attention. Such weaknesses within the position of unbelief tend to draw avoidable fire during discussions with believers and distract from the core issue of the gospel. If nonbelievers would correct these, it might improve the dialogue between the two sides.

1. The first weakness in the position of unbelief is its inability to provide a consistent and coherent alternative to the biblical worldview.

On one hand, nonbelievers can claim the defense attorney analogy and say that discovering the correct analysis of "life, the universe, and everything" is simply not their job. Many do, some effectively, but end up being predisposed to any or all beliefs, even contradictory ones, as long as the beliefs do not involve God. For some, just arousing the possibility of doubt about God's existence is sufficient to reject belief.

Doubt, however, can also exist about secular alternatives to the biblical worldview. For example, there are doubts even among nonbelievers as to the exact answer to the question of humanity's origin. When pressed on the subject of a preferred theory, a nonbeliever might:

A. Support evolution along the lines that Charles Darwin suggested (Darwinism), and doubt modern variations of that theory, or...

B. Endorse the revisions to Darwinism suggested by genetics (neo-Darwinism), and doubt Darwin's initial assessment, or...

C. Prefer the modifications Gould and Eldridge suggested (punctuated equilibria), and doubt classic Darwinism, or...

D. Adopt a theory along the lines Crick and Orgel suggested (directed panspermia), and doubt all previous theories, or...

E. Go with Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's modifications to that, and doubt Crick's directed panspermia, etc., etc.

The point is that nonbelievers cannot reject propositions about God solely because "those can be doubted", and yet accept propositions of atheism when each of those can be doubted as well. Mere doubt is insufficient grounds to reject any position.

Furthermore, an unbeliever dedicated to winning an argument with a believer is likely to internally favor any or all of these theories over the possibility that God was involved in any uncomfortably direct fashion. But to either embrace or favor contradictory theories only so long as they are atheistic is being neither logical nor true to scientific method; and it is only on logic and scientific method so many atheists claim to stand when they say there is no God. This is philosophically inconsistent, and is not a tenable position from which an unbeliever should expect to win either converts or arguments.

2. The second weakness in the position of unbelief is that proponents cannot seem to get their accusations straight against believers. The quotes at the top of this page by two nonbelievers are an example: is Christianity supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

Inconsistency in accusations makes it difficult for believers to know exactly what nonbelievers really object to, and to what exactly they should respond. It also makes nonbelievers appear confused or dishonest in their reasoning. Here, from various sources, are examples of the conflicting accusations or contradictory pairings I'm talking about:

The denial that Jesus even existed...AND assertions that he was actually the bastard son of a Roman soldier.

Statements criticizing Jesus' "vile moral commandments"...AND claims that nonbelievers are upholding them more faithfully than believers.

Proclamations that the Bible contains numerous accounts of sex, lies, wars, and power struggles...AND complaints that the Bible isn't realistic in it's portrayal of human history.

Claims that the God-given biblical teachings are but a crutch for the weak and oppressed...AND the accusation that God has provided nothing for the weak and oppressed.

Assertions that the Bible has no relevance and doesn't relate to anything today...AND complaints that the Bible is sticking it's nose into issues where it doesn't belong.

Claims that the message of the cross is unrealistically hopeful and falsely liberating...AND claims that the message of the cross is overly guilt-ridden and cruelly enslaving.

One portrayal of the average Christian as a smiley-faced simpleton...AND the portrayal of the average Christian as a scheming, sour-faced killjoy.

Authors expounding that Christians don't fully enjoy life like unbelievers...AND expounding that life is utterly pointless and is nothing but a tragedy to be endured.

Accusations that Christians don't think or reason...AND pages upon pages of articles dissecting and arguing with Christians' thinking and reasoning.

Statements claiming that believers refuse to believe the real truth about the Bible...AND declarations that there is no such thing as truth, or that truth is relative.

Assertions that modern theology is bad because it's structured and systematized...AND assertions that modern science is good because it's structured and systematized. (So skeptics who hate organized religion equally hate organized science?)

Concern voiced that sentences in articles by nonbelievers are being taken out of context...AND absolutely no concern voiced where a three or four-word verse fragment is being used to judge the entire 800,000+ word Bible.

Advice to unbelievers: Be sure to get your story straight about what you believe and to what you object. You have the right to be heard, but also the obligation to be honest and consistent.

(top of page)

See also:

What is truth?

God, evidence, and atheists