The Problem with Arguing for Religion

[Hawisher]

The Problem with Arguing for Religion,
Or
The Failure of the Forum for General Apologetics
David Hawisher​

We have seen with the failure of the General Apologetics forum that there exists an inherent difficulty with a layman taking up the theistic argument in a debate. Now, before you misinterpret that statement, I would like to clarify that I do not believe that this is because theism is invalid or inaccurate. I am a devout Christian, and though I am saddened by the general failure of apologetics in this forum, I am neither surprised nor disheartened but rather am encouraged to explore my beliefs in more depth that I might either act to reverse this distressing trend or at the very least triumph over my own doubts. I would, in fact, say that the trend of general failure on the part of the theists in this forum to convincingly defend Christianity against atheism is almost as much of a boon as it is a curse; for our failures contain within them the key to our eventual success.

I have previously gone into some small detail concerning one of the primary reasons that Christians have made very poor showings against atheists on this forum, which is the idea that those few atheists who participate on this forum are (by way of contrast with most theists on this forum) equipped through study and through reason to scrap, so to speak; though I shall expand upon it here, I no longer believe it to be the only or even the most important reason. I previously came to the conclusion that the fault lay with those Christians who come in to debate without having closely examined their faith, and I now believe this to be inaccurate and unfair to them. I believe that the fault lies in the greater part not with Christianity as a whole nor with the individual Christians who present inadequate arguments, but with Christianity’s traditions – that is to say, those tenets which, despite not being contained within the Bible, nor following from Scripture as a direct result of reason -- are uncritically accepted by a large number of Christians as being a part of their faith. I believe there are two things which simply must change before Christianity can be argued by the layman with any degree of efficacy: we must do away with this nonsense of accepting religion solely by faith, and we must encourage our fellow Christians to constantly re-evaluate their beliefs.

Now, I am aware that many of you will take exception with these ideas. Those of you who do will likely back up your position with Scripture. You may, for instance, quote John 20:29, which says, “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” This is a rather muddleheaded use of Scripture, if I may be frank. The apostle Thomas had walked with Jesus and seen Him perform many miracles, including raising another man from the dead. If that is not a convincing proof – to him – then it is clear those others were to be commended over him for their faith, for his doubt was unreasonable. I have not walked with Jesus, at least, not in the body. Nor have I heard His words with my ears, nor seen Him with my eyes. Jesus rebuked Thomas for having the evidence he needed to accept Him, yet failing to do so – and it is worth noting that his “rebuke” was, in truth, merely fainter praise. To say that Jesus’ statement to Thomas is a criticism of reason in general strikes me as being very wrongheaded, indeed.

Some of you, I am sure, are still not convinced. Your belief is based on blind faith, and while that is not necessarily a bad place to start, I don’t believe it to be sufficient. I have never spoken to a Christian who claims that God does not desire for us to grow in Christianity, and yet, the average Christian makes no effort to do so. The Church as a whole is like a school that claims to be very strong in maths, when all they really do is memorize their multiplication tables. They know their sums and they believe them to be true, but until they cast aside their tables for a time and think about why these sums are true, they will never truly understand mathematics. Memorizing tables is important for becoming a strong mathematician, just as faith is important for a Christian, but one does not become a better mathematician merely by memorizing more sums. One becomes stronger in maths by setting aside for a moment one’s regurgitation of one’s tables and actually thinking, long and hard, about what is true in mathematics and, just as importantly, why it is true. The same is true for Christians. If you accept – and, if you are a Christian, I think you ought to – that God wants you to grow in your faith (and I am here using “faith” in the sense of “religion or creed&#8221, then you accept that at some point you must set aside what your heart tells you and focus on what your head has to say about the matter. You need not fear that it will necessarily lead you astray. If you believe you know the what, you must focus on the why, and not stop until you find a “why” that satisfies you. It may be that your studies will lead you to abandon Christianity. If this is the case, then your faith was like a large house built upon a flawed foundation: it is better that it come down now, while you can still rebuild, than for it to come down later (for that is what happens to houses with flawed foundations) when you no longer are able. You need not fear the collapse; it is trivial and not worth your concern. When God calls you to task on the state of your spiritual house, he will not care how many times it has fallen, so long as it stands tall when you are finished.

If you are Christian, and yet are with me thus far, then I may assume you accept the necessity of basing your faith, your beliefs, around a core of reason. I congratulate you on keeping an open mind; many would see my statements thus far as a direct assault on “their” Christianity. This next statement, I fear, will be yet more contentious. It is only natural to assume, having established your faith on the solid bedrock of reason, that you are now set for life. Not only are you now better-prepared to face God, confident that your faith is based on reason rather than repetition, you need never again worry about having doubts. I tell you now that that is wrong. You will feel doubt, and not only is that inevitable, it is to be encouraged, and this is my next point. If you have belief that can survive serious introspection, then all is well and good. If not, then you should rebuild – again, not because you want to, nor because you feel like you “should,” but because your reason tells you to. Realize that I would not be saying this were I not convinced that Christianity is rational. You will never hear me advocate abandoning Christianity, or saying that you should do something that I think will lead you to abandon Christianity. Constantly examining your reasons for believing should lead you right back where you started, only this time, instead of standing on the shaky ladder of blind faith, you will be atop the marble stair of reason. You must constantly watch this stair, and ensure that it is sound; it acts counter to how a real stair acts in that it will, if you do not watch it very carefully, turn back into a ladder. Do not allow it to do so. For it to be of any glory to God, your faith must be grounded in logic; in reason, rather than repetition.

Having stayed with me thus far, you will by now be getting quite weary. Therefore, I shall leave you with the reason for this writing of mine, and the reason why I devoted quite some many words to a topic that is only of any interest to Christians after starting my essay with a good deal of writing about why we, as laymen, are making no headway against atheism. You think that all I have done is told you how you may grow in faith, without giving any information (as I promised to do) about our failure to properly evangelize. Well, here it is. I would like to ask you to indulge me for a moment longer, and imagine what leads a man to argue in favor of atheism. Now, that is at its core a different issue than what causes a man to become an atheist, because becoming an atheist requires nothing more than a simple act of disbelief. From what I have seen, a man (or a woman, of course) argues against theism (or, if you will, for atheism) because his reason has convinced him that theism does not logically make sense. Now, you can say all you like that he just refuses to see the truth, but the fact remains that he has logically considered his beliefs. If you, like me, are a Christian, then you believe that his logic has led him to the wrong conclusion, either because he was considering the evidence incorrectly or because he looked at the wrong evidence -- but how, if you have not subjected your own beliefs to the same level of scrutiny, can you ever expect to convince him of that? This, then, should be what truly convinces you of the necessity of scrutinizing your own beliefs. It is not enough to simply glance over your beliefs as you glance up from your multiplication tables. If you ever wish to do as Jesus commanded and spread the Good News – if you ever intend to do right by your faith and represent it as it should be represented – you must logically and rationally consider Christianity until you are well and truly convinced that you are on the right course.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well written and reasoned. It is good to see a Christian committed to a building a rational faith. It will be fun to talk to you more about your beliefs.

Do you apply this as well to your moral beliefs? You try to figure out what is right and wrong based on reasons?

What you advocate may be good for many people, but for many others it wont become a reality. For alot of Christians, they just aren't the sort of person to who think like this. Their beliefs are based on upbringing, social groups, habit, vague feelings. It is understandable that that happens. I'm sure the same lack of critical thought is true for many non-theists too, at least in the UK. I would hope that the reasonable atheists would know to judge Christianity on its better advocates, rather than its worst, or least able.

I don't know if reasoned argument is a good reason to believe anyway. I doubt there can be a solid argument for God. Faith seems to require feeling as well as thought. Belief alone doesn't bring about commitment. As I lost my faith I slowly rejected the arguments for God. I didn't want faulty reasoning, I wanted God. Religious experience and miracles were the only thing that could have saved my faith. Even then, religious experience stands on shaky psychological ground, and it is hard to prove a miracle.

Reasoned argument does seem like a justified way to believe, but from my experience, as you lose the bias towards belief, the arguments for God start looking a bit powerless.

But again, I commend your use of reason with faith. A rational and loving Christianity is a very beautiful thing.

 

[Hawisher]

I think C. S. Lewis explained the faith aspect of religion best (yes, I know, I'm a bit of a fanboy). He said something along the lines of, "having become convinced of the rationality of Christianity, you will still occasionally be plagued by doubts. These doubts may come from a temporary feeling of uncertainty in your reasoning, or they may be more emotional in nature. It is here where faith becomes essential, that you might remain constant in your devotion to God even through your momentary doubts."

Myself, I became convinced of the truth of Christianity through the Argument from History. I remain convinced of it, and it will be very hard to disabuse me of that conviction. Yet (perhaps because my faith is very new to me) I remain doubtful in my heart. That is where faith enters into it for me.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think C. S. Lewis explained the faith aspect of religion best (yes, I know, I'm a bit of a fanboy). He said something along the lines of, "having become convinced of the rationality of Christianity, you will still occasionally be plagued by doubts. These doubts may come from a temporary feeling of uncertainty in your reasoning, or they may be more emotional in nature. It is here where faith becomes essential, that you might remain constant in your devotion to God even through your momentary doubts."

Myself, I became convinced of the truth of Christianity through the Argument from History. I remain convinced of it, and it will be very hard to disabuse me of that conviction. Yet (perhaps because my faith is very new to me) I remain doubtful in my heart. That is where faith enters into it for me.

What is the argument from history?

 

[Hawisher]

What is the argument from history?

It begins with establishing that the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is quite good, and from there it naturally follows that Christ was either divine or a wizard. I like it because it allows me to argue something that I'm good at: what behavior we can expect from a group of people under certain circumstances, and whether other explanations for a concrete fact are reasonable. You see, I want to become a lawyer.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

It begins with establishing that the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is quite good,

What is this evidence that so convinces you?

 

[singpeace]

Awesome post!

 

[Redac]

What is this evidence that so convinces you?

Unless I'm mistaken, it might refer to the arguments regarding the events surrounding the Resurrection. As in, had Jesus not actually been resurrected, the people who went to his tomb would have known, and Christianity would have died in its infancy. There's more to the argument than that, but I think that's the basic premise.

If that's not what he means, I'm sure he'll let us know.

 

[Radagast]

The Problem with Arguing for Religion

I watched the Forum for General Apologetics die, but I disagree with your diagnosis. I would say:

1) Apologetics is a specialised skill; most Christians are probably not very good at it.

2) Apologetics argues only for SOME things (e.g. the reliability of the NT), NOT for the full truth of Christianity -- therefore apologetics is not the same as evangelism.

3) Rational arguments will not necessarily sway a determined atheist opponent, even if the arguments are perfectly sound. Some people's hearts are hardened against logic. For example, many people believe (in spite of all evidence) that the moon landings were faked and that homeopathy works.

4) It's ridiculous to want to change the truths of Christianity in the way you suggest.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Unless I'm mistaken, it might refer to the arguments regarding the events surrounding the Resurrection. As in, had Jesus not actually been resurrected, the people who went to his tomb would have known, and Christianity would have died in its infancy. There's more to the argument than that, but I think that's the basic premise.

If that's not what he means, I'm sure he'll let us know.

Sounds like heresay "evidence" unless that is not what he is meaning.

 

[Loudmouth]

Great opening post, by the way. While we are going to obviously disagree you still have spent effort and time to not only convey your beliefs but explain them as well. Kudos. You have spent time in crafting your thoughts and I only hope that my posts compliment the effort you have put into this.

My overwhelming reaction to your post is how I, as an atheist, view the ideas of reason, evidence, and faith. These words mean very, very different things to you and I. In fact, the meanings are so different that I don't think we should be using the same words. For example:

If you are Christian, and yet are with me thus far, then I may assume you accept the necessity of basing your faith, your beliefs, around a core of reason.

In my view, if you have a rational reason backed by evidence YOU DON'T NEED FAITH. Faith is a belief held in the ABSENCE of evidence, reason, and rationale. You mention Thomas which is a great example of what I am talking about. Did Thomas need faith to believe that Jesus was crucified and Resurrected? NO!!! Thomas had the evidence, he didn't need faith. You don't need to base faith on reason since if you have reason YOU DON'T NEED FAITH.

To help you understand what I am talking about, let's move into the arena of Science. Do scientists have faith that matter is made up of atoms that are themselves made up of particles that have specific properties of spin, charge, and mass? NO!!!!!!!! There is no faith involved. Scientists have come to these conclusions because of evidence, reason, and rationale. Faith is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what has occurred. In fact, distrust is the whole reason that evidence, reason, and rationale have such importance, not faith.

When theists talk about evidence for faith us atheists are left scratching our heads. You might as well talk about the dryness of wet, or the darkness of light. At that point your are using the ultimate oxymoron. If there is evidence for God, THEN SHOW US!! If you have to preface the discussion with "you have to have faith that we are right in order to conclude that we are right" then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I have come to one solid conclusion. When theists try to convince me that their faith is backed by reason, rationale, and evidence I can only conclude that they are trying to convince themselves that their faith is true. They aren't trying to convince atheists, but they are trying to convince themselves by equivocating faith and evidence.

Atheists don't think that way. We don't need to convert christians into atheists in order to feel convinced of our own conclusions. We don't need to turn the idea of faith into evidence or reason. If you think I am wrong, then name the last time you had an atheist missionary knock at your door. Name the last time an atheist asked for faith based rationals for accepting christianity instead of evidence and reason.

What I see in your opening post is an attempt to dress faith in the trappings of reason. Sorry, but that doesn't work.

 

[Loudmouth]

It begins with establishing that the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is quite good,

If that is the case, then why do christians need faith?

 

[Paradoxum]

It begins with establishing that the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is quite good, and from there it naturally follows that Christ was either divine or a wizard. I like it because it allows me to argue something that I'm good at: what behavior we can expect from a group of people under certain circumstances, and whether other explanations for a concrete fact are reasonable. You see, I want to become a lawyer.

Oh right, the arguments for the resurrection. Yeah, that is an interesting one which I still haven't totally figured out.

But I wonder if you would find it ask convincing if a similar story was told by Muslims. Would you believe it, or more likely assume that bit were made up?

 

[madaz]

Nice Post #1 David Hawisher

 

[Crandaddy]

You've written a fine essay, Mr. Hawisher. I certainly agree with you that it is extremely important that faith be firmly established upon the rock of reason. Fideism strikes me as a particularly serious heterodoxy.

 

[Ripheus27]

Sounds like heresay "evidence" unless that is not what he is meaning.

There's also a step from "evidence He was resurrected" to "evidence that everything attributed to Him when He was alive, was true of Him." For example, we can suppose that Christ was real and went around preaching and so on, then was crucified and came back to life. More than that, for instance what Christ might have thought the exact cause of the Resurrection was, I don't think can be established so easily based on the mere fact (if fact it was) of the Resurrection. So widespread testimony that He came back to life wouldn't get us very much farther than, "Sure, He came back to life. But what did He really say? What were His real teachings? How sure are we about any of that?"

I'm rambling a little, so to make my point again: 500+ people reportedly saw the risen Christ (I think). However, 500+ people did not write Gospels proclaiming a message from Him.