The atheist who didn't exist

I really looked forward to reading this book by Andy Bannister, which carries the sub-title 'the dreadful consequences of bad arguments.'  This book is clever and readable, and addresses the some of the common arguments put forward by the 'new atheists.'  If you have ever argued with an atheist who claimed that 'I believe in God in the same way as I believe in Santa' (as one friend said to me), 'atheism has enriched my life' or 'atheism is not a belief system' then this book is for you.


I have only one reservation about this book.  Those who know me will be aware that I have an over-the-top-and quite-annoying sense of humour.  So I was surprised to find that I found this book contained too many wisecracks for me. The humour in the main body of the book appealed to me, but I got irritated with the endless funny comments in the footnotes.  Nevertheless, don't let that put you off a really engaging book.


You can read a sample chapter here: http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-scandanavian-sceptic 

The Dawkins letters

David Robertson writes (in 2007) as a forty-four year old Presbyterian minister in Scotland.  He writes what Richard Dawkins calls a ‘flee book’ (a book feeding off his books).  This is certainly a great flee.

Robertson’s book consists of a series of letters sent to Dawkins (the first of which Dawkins posted on his website).  Robertson regularly engages on Dawkins’s site, and debates many atheists in public.  The letters in this book are well-written, and often very amusing.  There is, however, one sentence I would remove from the book (and if anyone ever reads this review and then reads the book they can try to guess which one).  The book is short, easy to read, informative and entertaining.  It highlights some of the well-known weaknesses in Dawkins’s reasoning, but also contains Robertson's own original thinking and unique style.

If you want engage with ‘the myth of atheist rationality and tolerance’, ‘the myth of the science/religion conflict’ or ‘the myth of religious child abuse’ why not take the few enjoyable hours it would take to read this book!

P.S. Turns out you don't have to buy this book.  These letters are contained on the 'bethinking.org' website.  http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-dawkins-letters

Reasons for God

Andrew Wilson asks, 'How can any thinking person choose God over science?'  He answers by suggesting four scientific facts that point to the probability of the Christian story over the atheist story.  They are:
(1) the sudden appearance of something out of nothing,
(2) the emergence of order out of chaos,
(3) the emergence of life from non-living matter,
(4) the emergence of consciousness.

What atheists believe about Christianity

David Robertson lists a number of things that atheists believe about Christianity:

1.  Christianity is a belief that's equivalent to a fairy story.  It is based on faith, which is defined as belief without, or contrary to, the evidence.
2.  The Bible is a primatial book written by illiterate desert shepherds who reflect the horrendous morality of their barbaric culture.
3.  Christians only believe because of their parents or predominant culture.
4.  Christians are intolerant bigoted fanatics and a bit dumb.
5.  Christians and the church are anti-science.
6.  Christianity is based on revelation, not reason.
7.  Christians are trapped, repressed and need to be set free.
8.  Christianity is the "regressive" position for society, a return to the dark ages.
9.  Some Christians do good things but it is in spite of, rather than because of, their Christianity.  Religion is seen as the root of all evil.
10.  Jesus is unnecessary.
11.  Suffering proves that the God of the. Bible does not exist.
12.  The Christian belief in the afterlife is pie in the sky when you die, and results in people wasting their lives on earth.

What atheists believe about atheism

In his book, 'Engaging with atheists', David Robertson lists twelve beliefs that atheists have about atheism.  They are:

1. Atheism is not a belief or faith.

2.  If God did exist then, if he is the God of the Bible, he is an ogre.

3.  Atheist is the default position of humanity.

4.  Atheism/agnosticism is the default position of intelligent, open minded and tolerant people.

5.  Atheism is the scientific position.

6.  Atheism is based on reason.

7.  Atheism sets people free.

8. Atheism is the "progressive" position for society.

9.  Some atheists do bad things but in spite of, rather than because of their atheism.

10. Human beings are fundamentally good.

11.  Sometimes life sucks and we just have to grin and bear it.

12.  We're on the road to nowhere.

The mystery of suffering

I listened to an excellent talk, by Andrew Wilson, on the question of suffering.  Perhaps you have had someone ask you, 'how can an all-powerful, all-loving God allow people to suffer?'

Andrew points out that this argument against the existence of God only became popular, in western culture, in the last two-hundred-and-fifty years.  This was when western people began to assume that, if God exists, they should be able to understand his mind.

So, their argument went: (1) An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God would not permit suffering without good reason, (2) I cannot think of any good reasons why he would allow certain tragedies, (3) therefore, there isn't one, (4) suffering exists, (5) so an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God does not exist.  

The problem obviously centres on point 3.

Most cultures look at this issue differently.  They do not assume that they have full knowledge of the mind of God/gods.  So they would reason: (1) An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God would not permit suffering without good reason, (2) I cannot think of any good reasons why he would allow certain tragedies, (3) my knowledge, however, is hugely limited, (4) suffering exists, (5) this is a mystery.

'The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law' (Deut. 29:29).

Who created the creator?

I used to think that it was a logical fallacy, but apparently it is a category error.  You see, atheists seem to believe that if you can explain the mechanism of creation then you do away with the need of a creator.  But that doesn't make sense.  For example, where does the original mass come from?  Dawkins responds to this question with the schoolboy question, 'if you believe in a creator then who created the creator?'  In this video clip John Lennox replies.

Why are atheists so angry?

The image of new atheists is not that they are happy relaxed people, but that they are angry.  Why are they so angry?  To be fair, some of their anger focuses on the many abuses that have been perpetrated in the name of religion.  But we should not ignore the fact that there may be deeper reasons lying behind their rage.

For example, psychologist Paul Vitz points out that Nietzsche and Voltaire had absent or rotten fathers, and argues that this damaged their ability to form a relationship with a Heavenly Father.  Similarly, behind some of Richard Dawkin's rage may be the fact that he suffered sexual abuse by a teacher who was a clergyman.  

Speaking from his office at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences, Vizt explains, 'We need to understand atheism has a lot to do with our emotional attitudes towards life, other people and a lot of other things.  I think that is an important thing for atheists and believers alike to take into consideration.'

In the interest of fairness, apparently the atheist Sam Harris had a very healthy relationship with his dad.

An atheist friend of mine explained that, 'if I am negative towards Christianity it is largely due to my experience of Christian people.'  So we need to be very aware of how our actions contribute towards people's openness, or otherwise, towards God.

It's a sin

'Christian focus is overwhelmingly on sin sin sin sin sin sin sin.  What a nasty preoccupation to have dominating your life' (Richard Dawkind, 'God Delusion').

'I am just a flawed human being, like anyone else' (atheist friend of mine).

'Nobody may pretend that there has been an elimination of the selfishness, and, sel-centredness of man' (Herbert Butterfield, University of Cambridge).

When asked by Joe Duffy, on the programme 'Spirit Level', if the concept of sin exists in Quakerism, Philip Jacob replied, 'Well, vaguely.  We don't specialise in trying to deal with sin, because it can often lead to guilt, and we don't think much of guilt.'

'God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Cor. 5:21).

The above quotes reveal a couple of things.  Firstly, any rational human-being cannot deny the selfishness and self-centredness of our lives.  Secondly, liberal Christianity and atheism share a belief that it is better not to be preoccupied with thoughts about sin, and therefore offer no solution to its reality.  Thirdly, Christianity offers a unique solution to the problem of sin, so that we can both face the reality about ourselves and live free from feelings of guilt.

Does atheism make you happy?

Remember the ad.  'There's probably no God.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.'  A lot was made of the fact that they used the term 'probably' but then it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God.  However, it is not the 'probably' I want to contend with.  It is the implication that we all would be happier without religion.  That is simply not true.  Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, comments that

The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.  If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.

Is atheism dangerous?

A few years ago I was walking with a friend in a seaside town.  Being Northern Ireland the streets were litter-free, until we turned up a back-alley.  The alley had loads of dog litter along it.  Why did people clean up after their dogs on the boardwalk but not in the alley?  Because in the allay no one was watching.  As an atheist friend of mine admitted, we are all flawed human beings.  When no one is watching, our true nature comes out.  

Now I know my atheist friends deplore the horrors of the twentieth century's totalitarian regimes as much as I do.  I believe they do so because they have a God-given conscience.  And I can't expect them to believe in God simply because he is handy for keeping people accountable.  Yet, I do believe that at the root of the Holocaust, Killing Fields, Russian Pogroms and Chinese Cultural Revolution was a denial of divine accountability.

I was struck by the following words from David Berlinski (contained in John Lennox's 'Gunning for God):

"Somewhere in Eastern Europe, an SS officer watched languidly, his machine gun cradled, as an elderly and bearded Hasidic Jew laboriously dug what he knew to be his grave.  Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner.  'God is watching what you are doing,' he said.  And then he was shot dead.

What Hitler did not believe, and what Stalin did not believe, and what Mao did not believe, and what the SS did not believe, and what the Gestapo did not believe, and what the NKVD did not believe, and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners,  nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts,  blackshirts, Gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe, was that God was watching what they were doing.

And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either."

Does religious fanaticism make us dangerous?

Are people who hold absolutist religious views dangerous?

The label 'religious fundamentalist' seems to assume that you are going to be a danger to society.  Many try to  lump all religious fanatics together.  So what matters is not the content of what you believe but the manner with which you hold your opinions.  Influenced by post-modern thought, people blame the world's troubles on those who hold to absolutist beliefs.  But this is far too simplistic.  After all no one lies in bed fearing that the Amish are about to launch an attack of Washington, and the Quakers of the nineteenth-century had an unrivalled reputation for impartiality and compassion during the Irish famine.

The reality is that different religions affect the world in different ways.  Although I am not in agreement with the teaching of Bahai, I don't think that its growth in Ireland will lead to violent revolution.  Nor do I expect the Hare Krishna to storm government buildings any time soon.  So how does absolutist Christianity stand up?

Contrary to the opinion of many, I don't think that the Bible is a diverse book that allows us to simply pick and choose from it at will.  I acknowledge that there are portions of Scripture that are less clear than others, and that people have reached diverse opinions on some of its teaching.  But a great deal of Scripture is absolutely clear, including the fact that Christians are to be peace-loving people who are a blessing to whatever society they live in.

I am well aware that there is a great deal of violence in the Bible.  I also realise that some of the violence in the Old Testament is commanded by God, in judgement upon the wickedness of certain Canaanite cultures.  Assumptions about the nature and existence of God will determine whether you believe that God has the right to impose such a penalty upon his creatures.

However, we need to keep in mind that these Old Testament texts were a part of a unique narrative.  In the Old Testament God was relating to his people as a nation.  God's people no longer constitute a nation, but are spread out as exiles among the nations (1 Peter 1:1).  As exiles among the nations we are to be obedient citizens (Romans 13:1-5), and desire to bless the land where we live.  Christians are to be a people who love their enemies (Matthew 5:43), live at peace with all people (Romans 12:18), and let God take care of vengeance (Romans 12:19).  Jesus forbids the use of force in defence of his cause (Mathew 26: 47-56, Luke 9:53-55, Luke 22:49-51).  John Lennox points out, 'to take the sword, gun, or bomb in Christ's name is to repudiate both Christ and his message.'

The fact that various people have tried to hijack Biblical texts, rip them out of context, and use them to justify their own corrupted ends does not mean that they have acted as genuine representatives of Biblical truth.  The fact that church history is dominated with a corrupted institution that perpetrated many evil deeds does not mean that they faithfully represent the teachings of scripture.  It simply proves the existence of wickedness in the core of humanity.  An atheist friend on Facebook admitted that he is 'a flawed human being like everyone else on the planet.'  I agree.  We are all flawed human beings.  It is this flaw in our human nature, rather than the teaching of Scripture, that explains the evil perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Finally, isn't interesting that when a group like Westboro Baptist church (an embarrassment to those of us who use the label Baptist) propagate hate they are said to be acting in an 'unchristian' manner?  Why do people use the term 'unchristian' to define bigotry and spite?  Because the term 'Christian' has long been synonymous with love and justice.  Content matters.  Not all religions affect society in equal ways.  In an article in The Times, Richard Dawkins admitted, 'I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers.'  If there were to be Christian suicide bombers it would not be because they took an absolutist view of the text.