Learning from Atheist books/videos to improve Christian Apologetics?

[2PhiloVoid]

There are some, such as myself, and apparently these fellow Christian academics at Biola University (in the short 7 minute video below), who think it is possible to learn from atheistic media (books/video/articles, etc.) to improve our own Christian understanding in various ways.

This thread is intended for both Christians and Atheists/Skeptics to discuss (or debate) the merits of Atheistic literature in relation to the 'doing' of Christian Apologetics ...

One question we may think about is: "What have you learned from atheistic literature that has informed you in a beneficial and/or useful way for grappling with either your outlook on life or your Christian faith when you've engaged it?"

As an example of a response to this question above, I'd say that when I first read atheistic philosopher George H. Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God, nearly twenty years ago, I gained the insight that there is more than one degree or kind of atheistic outlook, more than one way that those who do not believe in Theism will designate and qualify their own view about the God question. In some ways, this is similar to the ways in which Christians qualify themselves by harboring within cognitive attachments to various denominations and their respective identities.

Another thing I learned was that there can be 'holes' in the thinking of atheists.

But, what else could be something we may fit under the umbrella of this inquiry?

 

[RichardY]

Atheism is wrong though, silence is preferable. How to defend yourself from a man armed with a Banana.

As for holes in the thinking of the Atheist. The term itself is a hole and paradox, what more is there to say?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Atheism is wrong though, silence is preferable. How to defend yourself from a man armed with a Banana.

As for holes in the thinking of the Atheist. The term itself is a hole and paradox, what more is there to say?

One additional word, maybe two, could be said by Christians who actually follow Jesus in caring about a world covered in pain: empathy & sympathy.

In that case, I hardly see how "silence is golden." Silence is usually best kept to the movie theater, I think.

 

[RichardY]

One additional word, maybe two, could be said by Christians who actually follow Jesus in caring about a world covered in pain: empathy & sympathy.

In that case, I hardly see how "silence is golden." Silence is usually best kept to the movie theater, I think.

Well the whole expression apparently is "Speech is Silver, Silence is Golden".

If someone is a Pantheist; well maybe they are. If they are an Atheist, it's on them. All you can do is point out the contradiction of the phrase. They'll get it, or they won't.

You can speak Christians caring, I'm sure many do. Let the dead, bury the dead.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well the whole expression apparently is "Speech is Silver, Silence is Golden".

If someone is a Pantheist; well maybe they are. If they are an Atheist, it's on them. All you can do is point out the contradiction of the phrase. They'll get it, or they won't.

You can speak Christians caring, I'm sure many do. Let the dead, bury the dead.

You're viewpoint is understandable, especially if we have to deal with those atheists who seem to express themselves in nothing more than abrasively articulated notions of nihilism or scientism. However, on the whole, I'd rather look at other people, whether they're atheist or Christian, or whatever identity they espouse for themselves, and see them first and foremost as human beings who are traveling along this existential byway just the same as I am, with many of the same questions or concerns that I have.

While I can affirm that there can come a time when a Christian may have to sigh, look to Heaven, shrug about it all and say, "Let the dead bury their own dead," I'm going to seriously consider the interpetive measures that go into the context of that saying by Jesus before I do so and before I simply leapfrog over Immanuel Kant and many others who assert that human epistemology and God, like oil and water, don't typically mix very easily ... (Moreover, I'd like to point out that Jesus and the Apostles have also implied that there are some other deep-seated complications in the whole human epistemology and God equation, but I won't debate on those here since this thread is about another focal point, so...)

Back to the OP! Can I take it that you just haven't read any atheists's books or watched their videos, so you don't have anything further to add in response?

 

[RichardY]

@2PhiloVoid

I've watched a few atheists, on Youtube. Some trying to present cogent arguments or explanations. Some using Rhetoric.

I've read "Against the Gods." By Stefan Molyneux awhile a go. Watched Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens. On Youtube. Listened to Spinoza's The Ethics on Audible.

Watched a few videos by Darkmatter2525 mocking the Bible and Christian Dogma Doctrine which I found Hilarious at the time. The Penal Substitution theory is clearly ridiculous.

I see Atheists mostly as wolves, with vicious pack mentality. With a few exceptions.

 

[Silmarien]

Nice video. I think it's actually a great idea to expose Christian university students to atheistic writers. Trying to protect people from supposedly dangerous ideas is only going to backfire--they'll just end up with a warped understanding of what's out there, and won't be able to engage with these ideas if they ever do run into them.

I particularly appreciated the call out to the French existentialists, being one and all. (Though I think Nietzsche was misrepresented here, since he doesn't exactly have a rosy picture of the Death of God either.) There are any number of non-theistic philosophers who have what I'd consider a religious approach to life--I'd cite Wittgenstein too--and I think they're extremely important figures to be familiar with for just about anyone, but especially for religious people.

I'm less certain about the use of some of this stuff in apologetics. I have seen Sartre and Camus co-opted by Christians before, and the only people who've been able to really pull it off are the top-notch Christian existentialists. Jacques Maritain vs. Jean-Paul Sartre is a conversation that interests me, but popular level apologetics that start tossing around Sartrean philosophy is basically a travesty. Modern English speaking secularists generally descend from a different intellectual tradition, so this stuff means nothing to them, and only a committed continentalist can turn the European tradition against another continentalist. Anything else just comes across as shallow and missing the point (or polemical and shrill).

I have any number of issues with apologetics in general, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid

I've watched a few atheists, on Youtube. Some trying to present cogent arguments or explanations. Some using Rhetoric.

Wow! That description sounds incredibly similar to another group of folks who, shall I say, live on the other side of the ideological pond ...

I've read "Against the Gods." By Stefan Molyneux awhile a go.

I've never heard of Molyneux, but I just quickly looked him up and found something to the effect that he radiates racist and white supremacist banter, all of which doesn't sit well with me. Did I happen upon information for the correct Stefan Molyneux or was it a different individual of whom you speak?

Watched Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens. On Youtube. Listened to Spinoza's The Ethics on Audible.

Ok. That all counts here for this thread. So, you don't feel you found anything insightful or useful when listening to those folks?

Watched a few videos by Darkmatter2525 mocking the Bible and Christian Dogma Doctrine which I found Hilarious at the time. The Penal Substitution theory is clearly ridiculous.

Oh, I've see a few from Darkmatter2525 as well, and he's particularly pernicious, although I'm not sure how the following statement about the Penal Substitution Theory plays into any of this as a follow up.

I see Atheists mostly as wolves, with vicious pack mentality. With a few exceptions.

Some of them are wolves; but then again, some folks who claim to be Christian are real just White washed racist. But, I won't get into that here. Instead, I'll just agree with you that some atheists go overboard with social programs. Yet, a lot of other atheists are just being defensive because they afraid of political hegemony that could be supported by those on the political Right.

Anyway, I'm not going to say more about politics other than a sentence or two since I don't want us be to bogged down with all of that here. No, let's just stay focused on the Yay and Nay of what we find in the more robust Atheist sources and books.

[Thank you for your comments, Richard!]

 

[zippy2006]

How to defend yourself from a man armed with a Banana.

Explained in full at 2:30:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've waited for more folks to get in on this thread, but it looks like it going to be few and far between...........again. But here I go anyway!

Nice video. I think it's actually a great idea to expose Christian university students to atheistic writers. Trying to protect people from supposedly dangerous ideas is only going to backfire--they'll just end up with a warped understanding of what's out there, and won't be able to engage with these ideas if they ever do run into them.

I was surprised to run across this video, so I thought I'd share it, and on the application of the content, I couldn't agree with you more. But do you think there may be some folks, however devotedly Christian they may be, who might not benefit from engaging atheist media? I'm thinking that it might take a certain level of preparation to be able to understand, digest, and then handle that engagement.

I particularly appreciated the call out to the French existentialists, being one and all. (Though I think Nietzsche was misrepresented here, since he doesn't exactly have a rosy picture of the Death of God either.) There are any number of non-theistic philosophers who have what I'd consider a religious approach to life--I'd cite Wittgenstein too--and I think they're extremely important figures to be familiar with for just about anyone, but especially for religious people.

I'm not sure to what extent Janelle Aijian speaks correctly about Nietzsche since her very brief comment could just be made out as a curt summation of where she thinks he eventually ended up after his realization about the social implications which could come out of the 'death of God' issue. From what I've seen of her in another video, she seems to be in our philosophically inclined camp of thought but centers her existential interests upon all of the other existentialist philosophers.

I thought I'd heard that Wittgenstein developed some sympathies for Christianity later in life. Have you heard that rumor, or am I just imagining things?

I'm less certain about the use of some of this stuff in apologetics. I have seen Sartre and Camus co-opted by Christians before, and the only people who've been able to really pull it off are the top-notch Christian existentialists. Jacques Maritain vs. Jean-Paul Sartre is a conversation that interests me, but popular level apologetics that start tossing around Sartrean philosophy is basically a travesty.

Oh? Who was doing that? I haven't encountered any Christians yet who've attempted to use Sartre for apologetic purposes. I know I've referred to him myself a few brief times here on CF, so if I'm guilty of misappropriating his philosophy, please correct me.

Modern English speaking secularists generally descend from a different intellectual tradition, so this stuff means nothing to them, and only a committed continentalist can turn the European tradition against another continentalist. Anything else just comes across as shallow and missing the point (or polemical and shrill).

So, are you implying that the New Atheists don't have much use for the 'Old Guard'? Or something else altogether?

I have any number of issues with apologetics in general, though.

Feel free to make a list; but also feel free to make a list of the way in which atheistic views may overextend themselves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nice video. I think it's actually a great idea to expose Christian university students to atheistic writers. Trying to protect people from supposedly dangerous ideas is only going to backfire--they'll just end up with a warped understanding of what's out there, and won't be able to engage with these ideas if they ever do run into them.

I particularly appreciated the call out to the French existentialists, being one and all. (Though I think Nietzsche was misrepresented here, since he doesn't exactly have a rosy picture of the Death of God either.) There are any number of non-theistic philosophers who have what I'd consider a religious approach to life--I'd cite Wittgenstein too--and I think they're extremely important figures to be familiar with for just about anyone, but especially for religious people.

I'm less certain about the use of some of this stuff in apologetics. I have seen Sartre and Camus co-opted by Christians before, and the only people who've been able to really pull it off are the top-notch Christian existentialists. Jacques Maritain vs. Jean-Paul Sartre is a conversation that interests me, but popular level apologetics that start tossing around Sartrean philosophy is basically a travesty. Modern English speaking secularists generally descend from a different intellectual tradition, so this stuff means nothing to them, and only a committed continentalist can turn the European tradition against another continentalist. Anything else just comes across as shallow and missing the point (or polemical and shrill).

I have any number of issues with apologetics in general, though.

Here's that other video with Janelle Aijian I was speaking about, not that anything in it will be new for you, but I would be interested in your assessment of how 'accurately' you think/feel she handles the basic concepts of Existentialism:

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@RichardY,

If atheists are so stupid, why not just set aside five minutes to obliterate us on the internet? After all, there is no greater shame to an atheist than to lose a debate to a Christian.

But from where I'm standing it looks like you've got neither answers nor agape love for us sinners. So what good are you in the body of Christ? What fruit do you bear? At least there are some here who "try" to give me answers. And there are fewer still whose candle burns with agape love. You should try to at least do one or the other. Try not to be the rot in their fruit basket.

Bzzzz, hmm, I already see the flies.

 

[RichardY]

@Nihilist Virus
@2PhiloVoid

I forgive you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Nihilist Virus
@2PhiloVoid

I forgive you.

...that's great, but for what am I being forgiven?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

...that's great, but for what am I being forgiven?

He's a victim, don't you see? And what about the children? Won't someone think about the children?

 

[Moral Orel]

He's a victim, don't you see?

Victims, aren't we all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He's a victim, don't you see? And what about the children? Won't someone think about the children?

Apparently, some here are more interested in thinking "for" the children.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Victims, aren't we all.

Yes, something like that, at least if we count ourselves among some of the atheistic existentialists:

“Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.”

– Jean Paul Sartre
​

[....2PhiloVoid reflects upon this, mulls over his own state of being a victim of existential circumstance in a cruel world, and then takes another sip of his mimosa. ]

 

[FireDragon76]

I actually watched Sam Harris have a decent dialogue with a UCC minister:

I also like watching Yuval Harari talk. He's not religious and doesn't believe in God in any meaningful sense, but he does have alot of training in vipassana meditation and is committed to that.

I don't view atheists as my enemy or God's enemy, and I think there's alot to learn from people who have rejected a religious worldview. I view cruel people who use Christianity as a rationalization for their cruelty as the enemy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I actually watched Sam Harris have a decent dialogue with a UCC minister:

Wow! That really is a decent dialogue, with a Christian even! I wish all discussions could go that smoothly and be as useful.

I also like watching Yuval Harari talk. He's not religious and doesn't believe in God in any meaningful sense, but he does have alot of training in vipassana meditation and is committed to that.

Yes, I still think so too.

I don't view atheists as my enemy or God's enemy, and I think there's alot to learn from people who have rejected a religious worldview. I view cruel people who use Christianity as a rationalization for their cruelty as the enemy.

Atheists aren't the enemy, unless they want to promote some kind of politically inclined (read: Communist) purging of society. On the other hand, I do agree that it's particularly morally gross when people try to use religious ideas as a pretext and cover for their inclination toward hatred and cruelty. There really is something problematic when people let their ideologies override there humanity and humanitarian opportunities. I think the minister in the video you provided here calls it "othering."