How should we respond?

[Loukuss]

Been awhile since I've written anything here but I figured I'd pop back in and gather some ideas.

My question is largely an apologetic one and goes as follows:

What should be the response (if any) of the christian towards the new atheism? The new atheism being defined as the militant and hostile form of antitheism found in bestselling authors such as Dawkins, Hitchenson and Harris. I'm currently focusing on 'The God Delusion'.

I'm currently writing a final paper for one of my courses in theology for my masters program and I figured I would see what type of ideas I could gather from my old friends at CF.

Have anyone here read the book in question?

Thanks ahead of time.


Lucas

 

[Coralie]

I haven't read the books, but I've talked to many atheists who regard them as gospel.

Besides treating them with Christlike love and exercising patience, gentleness, and humility at all times, I think Christian apologists would do well to brush up on philosophy and the history of thought.

IMHO, the inherent reductionism of scientific atheism makes it very limited from a philosophical viewpoint, and Christians need to point this out consistently and patiently in all debates. This helps level the playing field in a debate... not in an unfair way, more in a "we were talking about apples and pears, and now we are both talking about apples" kinda way.

Unless we educate ourselves on this topic, it's easy to be steamrollered by reductionist arguments. Especially since the classic debate structure can, in itself, be used to support reductionism and doesn't always expose it well.

Those are my thoughts--although this is all easier said than done. It's hard to get all "meta" when you're being attacked by a highly emotional, evangelical atheist. But it must be done somehow...

Edited to add: I also think that apologists would do well to avoid trying to convert atheists to Christianity right off the bat (unless there is some pressing circumstance that says otherwise).

The fact is, many atheists need to first understand how anyone could believe in any God, let alone why they should believe in the Trinity. Most, particularly those who were once nominal Christians, never had a workable framework for the idea of [any] God, and hence abandoned belief altogether.

Once they have an understanding of a workable viewpoint, you can start citing that viewpoint in arguments that support Christianity vs. simple deism.

What I'm trying to say is, start small. Don't launch into explaining substitutionary atonement / unconditional election / immaculate conception when your atheist acquaintance hasn't even yet grasped how the concept of sin is "useful" in a purely physical universe, etc.

Y'know?

 

[AoDoA]

not sure about our response but I thought you might like this quote:

"A number of these myths are spun in "The Blind Watchmaker" by one of evolution's high priests, zoologist Richard Dawkins. Spetner searched this work for traces of solid science and found mainly false assumptions and technical inaccuracies instead. He notes that, "like many passionate believers, Dawkins did not examine his evidence critically." Indeed, his vaunted cumulative selection thesis is riddled with unfounded assumptions. He built his case for it entirely on the power of the concept, with not one word of proof. His biomorph and lexical computer simulations are demonstrated not to represent natural selection as his uncritical disciples may believe, only artificial selection, as in pigeon breeding."

Amazon.com: Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner: Books

 

[wayseer]

Been awhile since I've written anything here but I figured I'd pop back in and gather some ideas.

My question is largely an apologetic one and goes as follows:

What should be the response (if any) of the christian towards the new atheism? The new atheism being defined as the militant and hostile form of antitheism found in bestselling authors such as Dawkins, Hitchenson and Harris. I'm currently focusing on 'The God Delusion'.

I'm currently writing a final paper for one of my courses in theology for my masters program and I figured I would see what type of ideas I could gather from my old friends at CF.

Have anyone here read the book in question?

Thanks ahead of time.


Lucas

Hi Lucas - good luck with the paper.

I have read The God Delusion which is little more than a rehash of the worst attributes of Christian history. Apart from that Dawkins says very little and for a scientist a very unscientific piece of writing.

You might also like to look here at a post I wrote about atheism and Dawkins.

If I had to write a paper on Dawkins it would be a very short paper.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Loukuss. A Christian`s response should always be as our Lord told us: with love and compassion. The 2 Commandments which Jesus gave us, are straightforward and easy to remember. 1) Love God with all our being, and 2) love our neighbour, each other, As we love ourselves. The love Jesus taught us is the selfless and benevolent kind. " Do, or say unto others, as you would like to be done, or spoken, to. I say this humbly and with love, Loukuss. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Loukuss]

I haven't read the books, but I've talked to many atheists who regard them as gospel.

this is mostly what ive encounted myself. i was actually looking forward to reading 'the god delusion' to see how a supposed 'educated' atheist, who has been loudly touted as the leading voice and figure head of the new atheism, argues against the belief in God. i have to say im more than a little let down. his book is riddled with logical fallacies, most notably his repeated desire to erect miserable strawmen then to knock them down with victorious glee. when he used fred phelps of westbro baptist i just about lost my lunch.

Besides treating them with Christlike love and exercising patience, gentleness, and humility at all times, I think Christian apologists would do well to brush up on philosophy and the history of thought.

ya, all that sappy love stuff is nice but im wondering if the whole 'killing with kindness' is a little too passive for this situation. i like the second part here about philosophy. ive been mulling over getting down to the bare roots and trudging my way through some epistemology and existentialism. his blatant lack of understanding of theology, i believe, needs to be addressed as well. from his understanding of faith to the basics of biblical theology is atrocious at best.

IMHO, the inherent reductionism of scientific atheism makes it very limited from a philosophical viewpoint, and Christians need to point this out consistently and patiently in all debates.

good thoughts. ill research this a bit more.

Edited to add: I also think that apologists would do well to avoid trying to convert atheists to Christianity right off the bat (unless there is some pressing circumstance that says otherwise).

ive yet to encounter an atheist that has been converted to christianity through reason alone. God tends to break you and your life instead of using logic and reason to get you on your knees. i believe that best way of 'converting' your atheistic friends and family is through the way you live out the gospel in authenticity and love. once youve built a steady platform, reason and logic through an apologetic voice tend to be listened to with a more open mind and heart. of course, this is just my humble opinion.

thanks for all your imput.

 

[Loukuss]

Hi Lucas - good luck with the paper.

thank you very much, sir. God willing it will fetch me a respectful A.

I have read The God Delusion which is little more than a rehash of the worst attributes of Christian history. Apart from that Dawkins says very little and for a scientist a very unscientific piece of writing.

my thoughts were/are the same. for such a decorated scientist, he relies on arguments from emotion time and time again. my had began to hurt after encountering atleast five logical fallacies in one small chapter.

You might also like to look here at a post I wrote about atheism and Dawkins.

thanks, i checked it out. hopefully ill have some time to get in and share my thoughts.

If I had to write a paper on Dawkins it would be a very short paper.

really? i feel there are a lot of things i could write about. his overall lack of knowledge about theology being the number one topic, with the second major one being his complete lack of scientific argument in support of his scientific atheism. irony anyone?

 

[Loukuss]

Dear Loukuss. A Christian`s response should always be as our Lord told us: with love and compassion. The 2 Commandments which Jesus gave us, are straightforward and easy to remember. 1) Love God with all our being, and 2) love our neighbour, each other, As we love ourselves. The love Jesus taught us is the selfless and benevolent kind. " Do, or say unto others, as you would like to be done, or spoken, to. I say this humbly and with love, Loukuss. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

thanks for the response, emmy. as always (i remember your comments from years ago) you're quite right that Christ-like love needs to be shown towards our fallen brother, even though he espouses antichrist thoughts and ideas.
my question for you is, do we give him the lovely, dovey, blue-eyed, blond haired Christ love (complete with hugs and kisses), or do we give him the whip and the turning-over-tables, 'get the hell outta my temple you brood of vipers' type of love? as i said in an earlier post, i believe that the 'killing with kindness' method works at times with some unbelievers (and even hostile believers) but i question whether thats the response that is needed in this case.
yes, i realize im being quite dualistic here, and probably moreso because its a theological paper that im writing. i know there can be a balance between the two.
what do you think?

 

[AoDoA]

thanks for the response, emmy. as always (i remember your comments from years ago) you're quite right that Christ-like love needs to be shown towards our fallen brother, even though he espouses antichrist thoughts and ideas.
my question for you is, do we give him the lovely, dovey, blue-eyed, blond haired Christ love (complete with hugs and kisses), or do we give him the whip and the turning-over-tables, 'get the hell outta my temple you brood of vipers' type of love? as i said in an earlier post, i believe that the 'killing with kindness' method works at times with some unbelievers (and even hostile believers) but i question whether thats the response that is needed in this case.
yes, i realize im being quite dualistic here, and probably moreso because its a theological paper that im writing. i know there can be a balance between the two.
what do you think?

I honestly do not believe in sugar coating the truth about certain subjects

sometimes people need to hear blunt reality

I mean, what Dawkins is doing is very very serious and very very dangerous...the last thing he needs is to relax and believe everything is gonna be ok

he needs some fear of the almighty which is a good thing at times

fear keeps us in line

whats more important? making sure to always be politically correct and never offend anyone? or to talk as straight as a razor's edge and put the fear of God into a non believer playing with fire if perhaps God may grant him repentance?

I guess it depends on the situation

Ecclesiastes 3:

1There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
2A time to give birth and a time to die;
A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
3A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
4A time to weep and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn and a time to dance.
5A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
6A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
7A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak.
8A time to love and a time to hate;
A time for war and a time for peace.

 

[Loukuss]

I honestly do not believe in sugar coating the truth about certain subjects

sometimes people need to hear blunt reality

I mean, what Dawkins is doing is very very serious and very very dangerous...the last thing he needs is to relax and believe everything is gonna be ok

he needs some fear of the almighty which is a good thing at times

fear keeps us in line

whats more important? making sure to always be politically correct and never offend anyone? or to talk as straight as a razor's edge and put the fear of God into a non believer playing with fire if perhaps God may grant him repentance?

I guess it depends on the situation

thanks for your thoughts.
i agree with you on the whole not sugar coating thing. some people think its loving to be quiet and reserved about some issues, while others (and id probably throw myself into this boat most of the time) take a more blunt-object-to-the-head approach.

i like the bit about the 'fear of the almighty'. i think a healthy dose of fear for our Creator is a blessing to have. i dont think i have enough of it at times.

question to you (and anyone else that feels like chiming in) - does God really need us to defend His existence against the likes of Dawkins? or are we only replying to his militant attacks on faith in order to show those following the debate that faith in God is not only reasonable, its the only way?

 

[Coralie]

On a personal level:

Just a word of warning... I have never had, or seen, a good outcome to a fire-and-brimstone style "brood of vipers" conversation (monologue?).

I used to be an atheist. I was brought up by an atheist father with a very Dawkins-esque view on life, which I appropriated myself. I was converted through the efforts of two people who really, really loved me and showed me mercy even though I was a vindictive, angry, spiteful person.

Many had tried before that, using the tactics you describe above, and it only served to make me even more militantly atheist.

On a public level:

You won't change the mind if a public atheist like Dawkins of Hitchens by engaging in a public debate with him. The fact is, if a public debate changes anything, it's only change the minds of the audience.

In order to reach the audience, you need to deal gently with you opponent while still challenging all of his points in a thorough, intellectually honest way. And it wouldn't hurt the audience to see the stark contrast between the two approaches; the more aggressive debater ends up shooting himself in the foot. He becomes the villain, and nobody likes a villain.

The fact is, you are dealing with human beings here, and they are not atheists just for fun. They have real problems, real lives, real disappointments (with Christianity and other things), and they are doing the best they can within their own limited understanding.

They want to be shown, when they watch a public debate or read an apologetics book or blog post, that you understand them and their beliefs. Only then will they take your challenges seriously. Anything less than respect and love will not accomplish that; they'll believe you don't even understand what they believe, so why should they listen to you?

Human beings are repelled by arguments that belittle or insult them (whether they are intentionally designed to or not). Even if the argument makes sense, they will be sure not to listen to it or internalise it.

Just my $0.02. I offer it in hopes that more Christians like the ones who told me the Gospel will keep loving the angry atheists in their lives!

 

[cobweb]

We should always strive to respond with love and kindness.

Having been an atheist, I know that trying to convince a person with tricks of logic helps very little. Belief in God is a matter of faith. By its very nature it isn't logical.

Our best argument for the cause of Christ should be the way we live our lives.

 

[Coralie]

ive yet to encounter an atheist that has been converted to christianity through reason alone. God tends to break you and your life instead of using logic and reason to get you on your knees. i believe that best way of 'converting' your atheistic friends and family is through the way you live out the gospel in authenticity and love. once youve built a steady platform, reason and logic through an apologetic voice tend to be listened to with a more open mind and heart. of course, this is just my humble opinion.

This is sort of what I meant so maybe my last post was just preaching to the choir!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

hmm how to respond?

lay on hands and heal the sick, pray out loud and watch God do stuff .

the only way to respond to the spirit of unbelief is with miracles and signs and irrefutable proof of something they cannot explain . then you at least have the right to speak .

but if its all about intellectual stuff .

there is no response that convince them .

because only God can .

those are my two mites ..

hope your paper goes well

bless .

 

[racer]

Been awhile since I've written anything here but I figured I'd pop back in and gather some ideas.

My question is largely an apologetic one and goes as follows:

What should be the response (if any) of the christian towards the new atheism? The new atheism being defined as the militant and hostile form of antitheism found in bestselling authors such as Dawkins, Hitchenson and Harris. I'm currently focusing on 'The God Delusion'.

I'm currently writing a final paper for one of my courses in theology for my masters program and I figured I would see what type of ideas I could gather from my old friends at CF.

Have anyone here read the book in question?

Thanks ahead of time.


Lucas

I havent' read the book, but there is a mini-series running on the cable channel "Chiller" called Apparitions. There is a scene where a little girl shows a priest some books her (atheistic) father had. She tossed them on the bed and I believe one of them was the book you mentioned.

 

[LightHorseman]

not sure about our response but I thought you might like this quote:

"A number of these myths are spun in "The Blind Watchmaker" by one of evolution's high priests, zoologist Richard Dawkins. Spetner searched this work for traces of solid science and found mainly false assumptions and technical inaccuracies instead. He notes that, "like many passionate believers, Dawkins did not examine his evidence critically." Indeed, his vaunted cumulative selection thesis is riddled with unfounded assumptions. He built his case for it entirely on the power of the concept, with not one word of proof. His biomorph and lexical computer simulations are demonstrated not to represent natural selection as his uncritical disciples may believe, only artificial selection, as in pigeon breeding."

Amazon.com: Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner: Books

I wonder why the reviewer didn't actually cite any specific examples of Dawkins in error?

 

[LightHorseman]

I havent' read the book, but there is a mini-series running on the cable channel "Chiller" called Apparitions. There is a scene where a little girl shows a priest some books her (atheistic) father had. She tossed them on the bed and I believe one of them was the book you mentioned.

Well that proves it!!

 

[racer]

Well that proves it!!

Proves what exactly?

 

[LightHorseman]

Proves what exactly?

Whatever the point you were making was.

 

[Loukuss]

On a personal level:

Just a word of warning... I have never had, or seen, a good outcome to a fire-and-brimstone style "brood of vipers" conversation (monologue?).

i have in the church, though the message was being spoken to people actively seeking God, not rebelling against His existence. i havent seen the fire and brimstone method work on any atheists though.

You won't change the mind if a public atheist like Dawkins of Hitchens by engaging in a public debate with him. The fact is, if a public debate changes anything, it's only change the minds of the audience.

ya, i believe that any response to their literature would be for the benefit of the reader/listener moreso than the author. i feel that these men have pretty much heard everything there is and still refuse to acknowledge God. not everyone is going to come to Christ... unfortunately.

In order to reach the audience, you need to deal gently with you opponent while still challenging all of his points in a thorough, intellectually honest way.

emphasis mine.
i believe that too many christians, filled with a zeal for apologetics, get in over their heads when debating the existence of God with atheists, whom usually have done their fair share of homework. the outcome is usually ugly for the christian and victorious for the atheist.