reading recommendations for this atheist?

[pirateninja]

This is probably more on topic...

Our posts crossed. I really oughta do what I get paid for. I'll be back.

 

[ebia]

@ Ebia and heymikey90

I'll happily concede your frustrations with Dawkins from your perspective, though I will (perhaps slightly mischieviously) note that if you were frustrated at it taking 50 pages for Dawkins to get to an argument, then how do you think I felt getting to the index pages of an anti-Dawkins book and still finding no argument

Oh, there are plenty of Christian apologetics no better. I'm quite amazed at how similar Dawkins is to a good deal of fundamentalist apologetic, sharing many of the same faults down to a persecution-by-proxy complex!

I would add that I'm never very convinced that books addressing books ever read well. Which may be why people tend not to write them.

I picked on Dawkins because he is the one who gets picked on by the anti-atheist writers. There are a few points to note, though. I think Dawkins is an excellent writer,

He may be good at writing science but I would call this very poor, not because I disagree with his position but because it is largely cheap shots, playing to the gallery and wandering all over the place.

1. The God Delusion is not a holy text. Discarding it makes no difference to atheism.

Of course not, but you asked for comment on Dawkins argument, so I thought I better read some of it.

2. Dawkins also makes very few novel arguments and so if the God delusion were to vanish it would, again, make no difference. He just makes the arguments in (I think) a clear way and in one place. Someone who is inclined to be infuriated by the context in which he puts the arguments is not going to see the arguments. This is, I think, the problem with those who oppose Dawkins; they get so mad they fail to read it.

If that's true then the way he writes is to blame: if you bury your substantive argument in a lot of irrelevant playing to the gallery and personal attacks one needs to take the blame if people miss it.

2.a. Recall that I read Dawkins coming from a committed Christian background, I know my Bible and some theology. I recall thinking there are one or two straw men in there, but on the whole I didn't think he had things obviously wrong.

I'm not sure it's straw-men stricktly speaking, in that the poor ideas are mostly out there within Christianity, but if he wants to deal with God in general he needs to deal with the best/strongest ideas, not the weakest/most popular.
​

3. Lots of atheists ignore Dawkins or also find him difficult to read. I even know of atheists who refuse to read him precisely so when someone accuses them of just parroting Dawkins they can say "um, no". Which is not a position I hold to; but there you are.

I'm not sure he's difficult, just very frustrating.

The main point I'd make is to ask you to use your imagination and see it from a non-theist side. Not trying to convince you, just asking you to see things from a different perspective. Don't forget, by the way, that atheists are atheists about all religions, not just Christianity. Again, I won't go into detail unless asked, but from an atheist perspective we live in a world where people with religion are bent on violence, oppression of women, forcing schools to teach pseudoscience, enforcing on the community norms of dress, diet, entertainment and sex: all based not on any form of reason, but entirely on faith - in other words, fundamental attacks on the freedoms of the secular state (*) on the word of an invisible figure who ordered his people to practice genocide at one time. "Vitriol"? If you can manage to see it from our perspective, I think you would agree that Dawkins et al are being mild.

(Without getting into the detailed points) Religions are blamed for all those things because religions provide a means of exercising that control, but secular societies don't actually have a substantially better track record.

(*) by the way, it is popular at the moment for religious leaders and spokespersons to complain that Australia is a secular state and that they are being silenced - eg Danny Nalliah, Tom Frame, Waleed Aly, and I think Pell as well. They are confusing secularism with pluralism. If Australia were a fully secular state, for example, we wouldn't continue to have discrimination against same-sex couples who want to be married.

Things are rarely all or nothing - Australia is significantly secularised.

But you also seem to suggest that a secular society would have no oppression - yet history suggests otherwise.

 

[Quasicentennial]

True Christianity stands out from false Christianity and other religions that are deceived by Satan. Right now Christian television and internet are invading our lives. Our future generation appears to be heading towards Christianity. You take along with you your strong anti-Christian views to the grave, views that would have no affect on the next generation because of the strength the bible gives when it comes to right and wrong values, rather than who's right or wrong on life's beginnings.


​

 

[pirateninja]

True Christianity stands out from false Christianity and other religions that are deceived by Satan. Right now Christian television and internet are invading our lives. Our future generation appears to be heading towards Christianity. You take along with you your strong anti-Christian views to the grave, views that would have no affect on the next generation because of the strength the bible gives when it comes to right and wrong values, rather than who's right or wrong on life's beginnings.


​

I think you mean "effect" not "affect".

 

[pirateninja]

... snippage...

He may be good at writing science but I would call this very poor, not because I disagree with his position but because it is largely cheap shots, playing to the gallery and wandering all over the place.

I think I'm going to have to call de gustibus non est disputandum on that one.

Of course not, but you asked for comment on Dawkins argument, so I thought I better read some of it.

I wasn't expecting someone on the forum to take up the call, but thank you! I may have caused confusion by focusing on Dawkins in particular whereas what I was after was responses to the new atheism in general.

If that's true then the way he writes is to blame: if you bury your substantive argument in a lot of irrelevant playing to the gallery and personal attacks one needs to take the blame if people miss it.

Not sure if its "buried". Back to de gustibus I think.

I'm not sure it's straw-men stricktly speaking, in that the poor ideas are mostly out there within Christianity, but if he wants to deal with God in general he needs to deal with the best/strongest ideas, not the weakest/most popular.

​

You may be right. I'd have to go back and refresh myself on the book.

I'm not sure he's difficult, just very frustrating.

did I mention de gustibus ...

(Without getting into the detailed points) Religions are blamed for all those things because religions provide a means of exercising that control, but secular societies don't actually have a substantially better track record.

Down to my substantive point, but I'm afraid I'm not clear on the point you are making. I'm sure it's not that Christianity gets traction out of the slogan "Christianity: at least we're better than Pol Pot!". Some of the detail might help.

Things are rarely all or nothing - Australia is significantly secularised.

I perhaps wasn't being clear. I was just seeking to make the point that some leaders and spokespeople seem to be trying to get across an anti-secular vibe from an incorrect use of the idea of secularism.

But you also seem to suggest that a secular society would have no oppression - yet history suggests otherwise.

As above.

 

[ebia]

Not sure if its "buried". Back to de gustibus I think.

If you're hoping for serious engagement you need to engage the poeple you want to challenge, not just the people who agree with you already.

It strikes me reading it that, despite his claims otherwise, and like much popular Christian apologetic, this is a book written for those who already agree with him, or at most those who want permission to agree with him, not to seriously challenge those who disagree. It's a book to confirm positions, not challenge them.

Down to my substantive point, but I'm afraid I'm not clear on the point you are making. I'm sure it's not that Christianity gets traction out of the slogan "Christianity: at least we're better than Pol Pot!". Some of the detail might help.

The substantive point is: if you are going to claim that the world would be better off without religion you need to move beyond showing that harm is done in the name of religion and actually show either:

• that religion is the root cause of the harm (pretty much impossible to show even if it were true because human motivation and behavior is so complex) or
• that removing religion produces less harmful societies (not so far shown by history).

Religion isn't the root cause of harm, religion is one means people use for power and control and one excuse for carrying through on their prejudices and greed. Removing religion doesn't solve the problem, it just forces people to find different tools to do the work, and trying to artificially limit the scope of religion tends to breed fundamentalism (as in the US - founded on secular ideas but by far the most fundamentalist of western countries).

I perhaps wasn't being clear. I was just seeking to make the point that some leaders and spokespeople seem to be trying to get across an anti-secular vibe from an incorrect use of the idea of secularism.

Now I think I undertand your point less well. Maybe its because the only person I know on your list is Cardinal Pell, and I don't give a lot of attention to what he says.

 

[pirateninja]

emphasis added:

This is probably more on topic that my previousl ramblings as an example of him missing an important theological point:

Under Intelligent Design he says :"Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design,..."

He misses that point that in Christian theology evolution and design by God are not an either or. To over simplify, if Christianity is true everything is designed and we actually have nothing undesigned to use as a control comparision. That also raises problems ID, but the point for the moment is that Dawkins is wrong about where the problem is because he sees evolution and design as an either/or and good Judeo/Christian theology sees them as a both/and.

Weeeellllll.... in the first instance Dawkins only makes this argument because of Christians who both insist that evolution is intrinsically atheist, and that ID is in turn a slam-dunk refutation of atheism. In other words, that evolution and creation are either/or is entirely a Christian creation. One that you may disagree with, but you need to settle that with your fellow believers, not me or Dawkins.

Here's something to keep you going:

Atheism and deception - Conservapedia

Now, of course, there is the more sophisticated argument which Dawkins develops (in the sense that he goes on to write it down; I don't think it originates with Dawkins) that goes something like this:

Many Christians believe in guided evolution - evolution plus God. However, evolution doesn't need God in it to explain anything, unless what is to be explained is some prior religious beliefs eg to explain how man came about as God's goal in evolution. Which is begging the question. So we apply Occams razor and get unguided evolution which does the same job, except the interpolated religious outcome.
​

But that's not an either/or argument at all. That argument says; "lets look at the argument with and without God. Parsimony of argument says do without God. So let's do without."

P.S. this forum has a much better range of smilies than I'm used to. I shall get bored with them eventually, I expect.

 

[pirateninja]

...

Now I think I undertand your point less well. Maybe its because the only person I know on your list is Cardinal Pell, and I don't give a lot of attention to what he says.

Nobody seems to pay attention to Pell except the editors of of Quadrant.

Bishop Tom Frame BA NSW, DipEd Melb, ThDip Australian Coll Theol, MTh Syd Coll Divinity, MA (Hons) Kent, PhD NSW is a professor of theology at St Marks National Theological Centre (part of CSU), Canberra. He's an Anglican Bishop btw.

Danny Nalliah is a Pastor at Catch the Fire Ministries and is probably most famous in the secular world for saying that God allowed the Victorian bushfires to happen because of abortion. Also notable for running seminars on the dangers of Islam, and getting taken to court for his troubles for the same. Most recently in the news for travelling to Canberra to exorcise the Government from its abortion, witchcraft and homosexuality caused demonic posession. Oh, he was a running mate with Stephen Fielding as well.

Waleed Aly is an academic and commentator on things Islamic who has been picked up as one of the compulsory talking heads by both media and government.

All three have recently complained that atheists and secularists are trying to silence them, and well, you know, the whole point of secular society is that everyone has a voice. I agree that everyone should have a voice, but that's pluralism, not secularism.

I'll come back on the other points.

P.S. a quick couple before I close up: no I don't need to show that religion is the cause of all problems to show that religion is a problem. And religion is a practice. So I don't see how religion can be separated from how people practice it.

 

[pirateninja]

...
Hm, good, given your background, have you read in some form some linguist who can lead you to extract denotation from connotation? If you have, I'd like to get to the denotative heart of Dawkins' assertions. You can send me some of them privately if you like, or you can cite and then translate them. They're too horrifically entwined in bigoted attacks for me to extract them. I've failed every time I've tried to approach it. It seems to come down to some bigoted attack on people he perceives as bigoted. Which has been circular every time I've read it.

Well, good. A citation of some of those core arguments, without the apoplexy, would be interesting. So far I've yet to encounter even one article of Dawkins' that hasn't been covered in vitriol.

I'm fairly well-versed in cosmology, more disparaging of biology and psychology. So I'd be interested. I don't know how much the rules can tolerate, though a citation of someone else's work, removed from its emotive and intensional attacks, I could probably help you sustain it as worth posting.

Well, I seem to be in the detail now. I'll see what I can do. Might take me a little while, though.

 

[ebia]

Nobody seems to pay attention to Pell except the editors of of Quadrant.

Bishop Tom Frame BA NSW, DipEd Melb, ThDip Australian Coll Theol, MTh Syd Coll Divinity, MA (Hons) Kent, PhD NSW is a professor of theology at St Marks National Theological Centre (part of CSU), Canberra. He's an Anglican Bishop btw.

Not had any cause to come across him so far.

Danny Nalliah is a Pastor at Catch the Fire Ministries and is probably most famous in the secular world for saying that God allowed the Victorian bushfires to happen because of abortion. Also notable for running seminars on the dangers of Islam, and getting taken to court for his troubles for the same. Most recently in the news for travelling to Canberra to exorcise the Government from its abortion, witchcraft and homosexuality caused demonic posession

Ah. Him.

Waleed Aly is an academic and commentator on things Islamic who has been picked up as one of the compulsory talking heads by both media and government.

Sorry, not come accross him so far as I know.

All three have recently complained that atheists and secularists are trying to silence them,

I dare say some have. Not without good cause in some cases I suspect.

I'm not sure I can comment without having heard the particular complaints in-situ but there are voices who would silence all but secular opinion in the public arena and would try to keep the voice of Bishops (say) to the confines of their cathedrals except on religious issues.

I'll come back on the other points.

No worries.

[P.S. a quick couple before I close up: no I don't need to show that religion is the cause of all problems to show that religion is a problem. [/quote]I didn't say you should. I said you need to show that it was the cause and not just a means that would be replaced by another means.

 

[freeport]

I wonder if this question might be better posed in the apologetics forum, but I see that is for Christians only

I am an atheist looking for some reading recommendations. I like being intellectually challenged, and I’ve been reading various books and sources that are cited as antidotes to the ‘new atheism’. I believe that it is important to have one’s views tested from time to time, and I don’t want to slip into a lazy intellectual comfortability. Nothing I have read so far, however, actually addresses atheist arguments and puts forward a counter view. The responses I have come across so far all either make ad-hominem attacks against atheist writers, complain that atheists are being beastly, dismiss atheists as not being up with theology, or simply restate old arguments. None of this actually constitutes any sort of response to current atheist writing.

Can anyone point me at any resources (preferably books – I’m an old guy, I like to read, not listen to mp3s) that actually address current atheist writing? For example (I’ll refer to Dawkins in particular as he is the bete noir of contemporary counter-atheism writers, it seems)

• instead of saying that Dawkins is not qualified in theology, actually explain some of the theological arguments and why Dawkins is wrong.
• instead of just restating the ideas that complex organisms cannot come to be by chance, there are no intermediate stages to eyes, etc etc, actually unpack Dawkin’s arguments and show why he is wrong in his criticism of these arguments.

I’ll be even pickier: what I’m really interested in are responses to the scientific and metaphysical questions of the existence of god or gods. While Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc, comment on the evils committed by religion which provokes in turn comments about the good done by religion, social utility is no argument for or against the existence of god or gods (whether god or gods are good is another matter but that is, well, another matter).

The whole evolution debate thing is actually absurd and shallow. What you need to do is consider alternatives to reality.

Remember, evolution is the default taught in school, not the rebellion people hammer it into your heads that it is.


People get caught into this temptation of trying to prove their enemies wrong. Whatever they define as "my enemy". For many people their list of enemy individuals and groups is ever growing. And they continue to shrink within the box of their own pretensions.

Their greatest pleasure in life comes from a delusion of superiority. But, delusions never satisfy. The "Us Vs Them" paradigm is ultimately shallow and always needing to be fed. It ends nowhere and really is just an excuse to never ask one's self the important questions like:

"Who am I?"

"What do I really want?"

"Who are my heroes, and would it really be fulfilling to be them?"

"Is my life interesting or painfully dull?"


And so on.


And so people go on, some caught in a gordion's knot of intellectual challenges they are led to believe they should never cut.

Is that somehow fulfilling? To be lost in mazes which have no end? Who is the cheese and who is the rat?

It is like vengeance. Seems good on paper. But if one studies it they find it actually does not make anything better at all. Yet, people go through their lives priding themselves on their long list of villains and their ever growing sins... sins and villains which are quite often entirely imaginary. And above all entirely pointless.

They then never even notice the monster they are spending all their time chasing is just a shadow in their own heart. Not someone "out there".


People should question reality. But, too often, they do not.

So reality questions them.

 

[ebia]

Weeeellllll.... in the first instance Dawkins only makes this argument because of Christians who both insist that evolution is intrinsically atheist, and that ID is in turn a slam-dunk refutation of atheism. In other words, that evolution and creation are either/or is entirely a Christian creation.

If that's all he's trying to do there that's fine, so long as its clear that by doing so he has only addressed one narrow viewpoint and said nothing about the bigger idea of God. That's one of the frustrations of his book - that he flits between trying to say something about the divine generally, the Christian God specifically, and certain viewpoints on the Christian God even more specifically, without much pattern and without being explicit about it. So what he's tryed to do is mention the idea that God is shown in the idea of design in the universe, refute one particular version of it, and then carried on to the next topic hoping to leave the impression that he's dealt properly with the whole type of argument. There are problems with arguing that way, but he's missed that because he's gone for the easy target rather than engage with the better theology.

Many Christians believe in guided evolution - evolution plus God. However, evolution doesn't need God in it to explain anything, unless what is to be explained is some prior religious beliefs eg to explain how man came about as God's goal in evolution. Which is begging the question. So we apply Occams razor and get unguided evolution which does the same job, except the interpolated religious outcome.

Misses the whole point - TE is not trying to be a mechanistic explanation for the diversity of life.

But that's not an either/or argument at all. That argument says; "lets look at the argument with and without God. Parsimony of argument says do without God. So let's do without."

It never was an argument. TE is a viewpoint, or rather the application of a viewpoint, not an argument for God. It's not something up for refutation, and better TEs do not see it as evolution + God produces the diversity but, quite literally, evolution is (one aspect of) God's outpouring creativity.

The correct scientific explanation of the diversity of life is evolution. The correct theological explanation of the diversity of life is God. TE is combining both in the same sentence, not suggesting that God is necessary for the scientific explanation to work or vice-versa. YHWH is not a god-of-the-gaps.
​

 

[Bible2]

I don't see how religion can be separated from how people practice it.

If people claiming to be of the Christian religion don't actually practice what Christ taught, such as not to commit violence against other people (Matthew 5:39, 26:52), then they are not practicing the religion of Christ, but a different religion of their own invention which they are falsely calling "Christian".

"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (2 Peter 2:2).

 

[ebia]

Oh dear. Just got to Dawkins' bit on Scripture. Less said the better really.

 

[spidergains]

What distinguishes Biblical writings from other religious material is its prophecy. Biblical prophecies are 100% accurate--something good to know in these uncertain times.

Here's a quick read.
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies

 

[pirateninja]

The whole evolution debate thing is actually absurd and shallow.

Well, don't tell me, tell the Christians who make this a pivotal issue in their battle with the secular world.

What you need to do is consider alternatives to reality.

What non-reality do you suggest I entertain?

Remember, evolution is the default taught in school,

Yes - if by "default" you mean, mainstream science accepted by everyone who doesn't have a religious axe to grind.

not the rebellion people hammer it into your heads that it is.

As I just said, it's mainstream science. The only people who tell me it is rebellion are Christians.

People get caught ...them.

Sorry, lost me there.

 

[pirateninja]

What distinguishes Biblical writings from other religious material is its prophecy. Biblical prophecies are 100% accurate--something good to know in these uncertain times.

Here's a quick read.
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies

What about midrash?

 

[pirateninja]

If that's all he's trying to do there that's fine, so long as its clear that by doing so he has only addressed one narrow viewpoint and said nothing about the bigger idea of God.

I don't think that's a realistic viewpoint. Creation/ID is one of the key front lines in the fight between religion, in particular Christianity, and the secular world. Whether or not one agrees with creation or evolution is, for some Christians, a touchstone of quality of faith. And it is Christians that have made it this way. You disagree - but with them, not with me.

As a matter of principle I also think this is critical, not narrow. It goes to the entire issue of what counts as fact and the educational basis of the modern world.

Misses the whole point ... YHWH is not a god-of-the-gaps.

and on this you and I agree completely. The problem is that many Christians do not agree with this proposition, and would indeed consider your faith dangerously lacking.

Back to other stuff: as I said, it doesn't follow that because I think religion is a bad thing that therefore I think it is the cause of everything that is harmful. More generally, to say "X is bad therefore if not-X then the entire world will be fixed" is clearly silly. But if X is bad, then we are still better off without X. Bad stuff would still happen.

I'll explain it a bit more from my perspective. Again, I don't expect to convince, but I'm asking for understanding, particularly of why I and others are not simply atheists but disposed to be opposed to religion.

First, there is lots of bad stuff in the world. If people ceased to be religious this would still be the case. People use a variety of reasons, religious, ideological, or just plain innate unpleasantness to commit evils ranging from genocides to mistreating their work colleagues.

Secondly, there is a lot of good in the world. Kindness, charity, compassion, caring, friendship, love. These are not unique to religion.


Thirdly, what characteristics does religion bring uniquely to the world? To show my hand, let's leave aside atrocities and focus on the mundane, everyday things that affect ordinary people every day:

• sex, food and clothing taboos
• restrictions on entertainment and media beyond community norms
• time and financial resources spent on religious activities
• strict gender roles that prevent men and women - especially women - realising themselves
• discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality
• subordination of reality to doctrine

That is, things that routinely make people guilty, miserable, mentally ill, and ignorant. And which religious people enforce not just on themselves, but variously have enforced or are seeking to enforce on the rest of their communities.

From an atheist's perspective the world would be better if these things were not foisted on non-believers. Indeed, from a broader perspective of concern for all people including believers, the world would be better still if no-one had to suffer under these burdens.

Turning to yet another issue still: yes some secularists think that secularism means that religion should not have a voice at all. My own view, and what I hear most atheists say - and indeed the New Athiests I have read say quite clearly that this is their view - is that religious views should be heard but accorded no special privilige. What Danny Nalliah (yes, oh, him) was complaining about, though, was that when he led a rally to cleanse Canberra of its demonic possession, other groups exercised their right also to express their view. Frame, Aly and others interpret disagreement with their views as being the same as silencing them, which is obtuse and mischevious I think.

If you can cope, this article says very clearly how a lot of atheists secularists are feeling (edit: and indeed expresses better than I did a lot of the frustration underlying my original post)

Atheists | Theists | Michael Brull

which was in response to this:

A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

 

[ebia]

I don't think that's a realistic viewpoint. Creation/ID is one of the key front lines in the fight between religion, in particular Christianity, and the secular world. Whether or not one agrees with creation or evolution is, for some Christians, a touchstone of quality of faith. And it is Christians that have made it this way. You disagree - but with them, not with me.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that he equivocates, or at least deliberately blurs the boundaries, between whether he is addressing a particular specific view of God or a more generalised view of God. His refution of ID works (sort of - he could do better) for the creationist position but he tries to leave the impression that he has dealt with the more generalised idea that God is seen in the design of the universe.

Perhaps he needs to make his mind up whether he wants to deal with what he sees as the most dangerous and easy to deal with forms of god-believing, or whether he wants to deal with god-believing in general. Or at least address one and then the other. Not keep telling us he is doing one and then keeping dropping down to the other.

Back to other stuff: as I said, it doesn't follow that because I think religion is a bad thing that therefore I think it is the cause of everything that is harmful. More generally, to say "X is bad therefore if not-X then the entire world will be fixed" is clearly silly. But if X is bad, then we are still better off without X. Bad stuff would still happen.

Almost anything can and most things are misused. To show X is sometimes used for harm does not show the world would be better off without X. No-one has shown that "religion is bad", only that 'bad sometimes happens through religion". People use language to cause harm, but no-one suggests we would be better off without it.

There's no evidence anywhere that trying to remove religion reduces harm on balance, or that attempted secular societies do any better. It's pure 17th century assumption (quite remarkable from a position that prides itself on objectivity).

But if you want to explore this line further I suggest a fresh thread.

Turning to yet another issue still: yes some secularists think that secularism means that religion should not have a voice at all. My own view, and what I hear most atheists say - and indeed the New Athiests I have read say quite clearly that this is their view - is that religious views should be heard but accorded no special privilige.

on that we are agreed.

of course whether or not I feel my voice is being fairly heard can be a very subjective thing, so if one is getting it right one will be hearing complaints from all sides from people who feel their voice is being muffled. One's opponents always seem to get more airtime than one's friends.

I read the links. Well the first one and only half of Craven's, which was too boring.

I'm not fan of anybody's view being silenced if it can be expressed without inciting hate (and I don't exclude Christian voices from that caveat). I would rather it could be done with more light and less heat on all sides. "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt,".

 

[Bible2]

Thirdly, what characteristics does religion bring uniquely to the world?

What Christ himself brought uniquely to the world was a way for people to be saved from eternal damnation for their sins: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (John 3:16-21).

The unique thing that Christ accomplished to save us was to die on the Cross for our sins and rise from the dead on the third day: "brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).

Jesus is the only way for us to be saved: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

subordination of reality to doctrine

Biblical doctrine doesn't subordinate reality; it is the most important part of reality, the part that can save us and show us the right way to live: "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
|
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 3:15-4:4).

So it is only those ideas which reject Biblical doctrine which go against reality and enter into the realm of fables.

"The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1).

That is, things that routinely make people guilty, miserable, mentally ill, and ignorant.

Christ does the opposite of those things: instead of making believers guilty, he makes them free of guiltiness: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

Instead of making believers miserable, Christ fills them with joy: "ye rejoice with joy unspeakable" (1 Peter 1:8).

Instead of making believers mentally ill, Christ gives them sanity: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7).

Instead of making believers ignorant, Christ gives them supreme knowledge: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

From an atheist's perspective the world would be better if these things were not foisted on non-believers.

No one can foist a belief in Christ upon non-believers; it can come only as a miraculous gift from God: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). "Ye believed, even as the Lord gave" (1 Corinthians 3:5). "Therefore said I [Jesus] unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father" (John 6:65). "As as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).

All Christians can do is share what the Bible says with unbelievers and pray that God will miraculously give them the ability to acknowledge that it's the truth: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will" (2 Timothy 2:25-26).

"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart" (Matthew 13:19).

Indeed, from a broader perspective of concern for all people including believers, the world would be better still if no-one had to suffer under these burdens.

It is Christ to frees us from our burdens: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).