Apologetics for the Masses #503 - A Conversation With an Atheist

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

My conversation with an atheist about why I believe in God.

General Comments

Hey folks,

1) Here are a couple of resources you might be interested in for when you're engaging with people about the faith, or to simply learn more about the faith:

A) Catholic Answers' Bible Navigator - gives scriptural backing for a number of Catholic beliefs - e.g., abortion, apostolic succession, contraception, Mary, relics, etc. - as well as tracts and articles that allow for a deeper dive into most of the topics.

B) What Does the Bible Teach About Forgiveness - St. Paul Center - This is an article from the St. Paul Center which tracks fairly well with my newsletters: Apologetics for the Masses #494 and Apologetics for the Masses #495 on the same topic - about whether or not we have to forgive others even if they don't repent. Just thought you might like to read about it from a different, although similar, perspective.

2) Whether you're a fan of President Trump's policies, Executive Orders, etc. or not, the fact is, there is a lot of unhinged hysteria in the media about all of what is going on. Chicken Littles all over the place yelling "Constitutional crisis! Constitutional crisis!" and that Trump has broken any number of laws and he's establishing a dictatorship, and so on.

Given that, I thought I would include a link to an article, written by a liberal Harvard Law Professor, and published in the liberal New Yorker Magazine, that gives a rational and reasoned - even if slightly slanted - perspective about what Trump is doing and how he is doing it. Keep in mind, though, that you get one shot to read the article for free. If you try to go back to it a 2nd time, it won't let you read it unless you sign up for a subscription. So don't click out of it until you've read it all. Here it is:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-strategy-behind-trumps-defiance-of-the-law

Basically, what Trump is doing is negotiating. People need to read his book. He's pushing the limits. He's negotiating with Denmark and Greenland. He's negotiating with Panama. He's negotiating with Canada. He's negotiating with Mexico. He's negotiating with NATO. And so on. And, in essence, he's negotiating with the Supreme Court. He believes certain laws passed by Congress and certain past court decisions are very likely unconstitutional restrictions on the Executive Branch, so he's issuing all sorts of orders - which he knows will be challenged in court - that will allow for those laws and decisions to be tested - eventually at the Supreme Court - and possibly overturned. There is one particular line in that article that sums everything up: "Ultimately, if Trump’s actions end up reflecting accurate predictions of what the Court will do, it will turn out that he has not acted unlawfully after all."

Thought some of you might find it interesting, and, if you have Chicken Littles amongst family and friends, maybe share it with them.

Introduction

I had said in my last newsletter, that this issue would be about the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Well...maybe not. I decided to postpone talking about that particular topic, for at least one more issue, and instead share with you a conversation I'm having with an atheist who reads my newsletter. More and more we, as Catholics, are having to deal with people - family members, friends, co-workers, fellow students, etc. - who are losing, or have lost, their faith in God - or maybe never had any faith in God to begin with. So, I thought I would share this conversation to see if it might be of any use to those of you engaged, or who will possibly one day be engaged, in any such conversations.

The conversation started when "K," who reads my newsletters, emailed me a couple of weeks ago after receiving Issue #501 of Apologetics for the Masses about indefectibility and the Pope . So, that's where the conversation starts below.

(After I wrap this conversation up, whether in this issue, or the next, then I'll address the necessity of Baptism question.)

Challenge/Response/Strategy

K
How can you still believe this [i.e., still believe in God]? I mean religious leaders are being exposed as perverts all over the planet. This god or its holy book does nothing to help a man behave decently. And look at those evangelicals who claim their god actually chose the current president.

Will the real god please stand up!

John Martignoni
Dear K.,

How can I still believe that God exists? How can you not believe He does?

Let's examine your premise, shall we? You think one shouldn't believe in God because those who do profess a belief in God quite often behave rather badly.

Premise: Those who believe in God often behave rather badly. Conclusion: One should not believe in God because of the bad behavior of those who do.

But, it is also true that those who do not believe in God, often behave rather badly.

Premise: Those who do not believe in God often behave rather badly. Conclusion: One should believe in God because of the bad behavior of those who don't.

It seems, then, that one should not base one's belief or unbelief in God on the behavior of either believers or unbelievers.

So, then, what should a person base their belief or unbelief in God on? How about a careful examination of the evidence?

Your evidence, so far, for not believing in God, is the fact that self-professed believers very often do not "behave decently". However, I can counter with evidence that non-believers also very often do not "behave decently". Which, by your logic, would be an argument for believing in God.

So far, then, neither position has the upper hand. So, what other evidence, or arguments, can you offer me for not believing in God?

I will offer two questions for you to consider:

1) Why is there something, instead of nothing?

2) Who decides what is or is not behaving "decently"?

You mentioned that "this god" or its "holy book" do nothing to help a man behave decently. First of all, I am living proof that "this god" and His "holy book" do, in fact, help a man behave decently. But, beyond that, your statement begs the question - what is "decent"? Or, to put it in starker terms: what is "good"? And, what is "evil"? Who is it that decides what is or is not "good" or "evil"? I submit that, without God, there is no objective standard by which to decide good or evil, therefore, subjectively, everything could be good or evil, depending on the opinion of any given person. If there is no God, then who is it exactly that determines whether or not the religious leaders you mention are indeed "perverts". What is the objective standard to which you are holding them?

I look forward to your response.

My Comments
He seems to be saying that the behavior of believers - the fact that they sin, in general, and that some of them commit rather heinous sins at times - is an argument against the existence of God. But, if that is indeed his argument, then the behavior of non-believers - the fact that they sin, in general, and that some of them commit rather heinous sins at times - would be an argument for the existence of God. So those two arguments cancel each other out. Furthermore, I can personally attest to the fact that believing in God - and reading His book - does indeed help one to behave "decently"...or, at least, better than they were behaving before they believed...and I could name a whole lot of other folks who could also testify to that fact.

But, his initial argument begs the question...what is, or is not, "decent" behavior (i.e., good or evil)? Who decides, if there is no God? This is a fundamental weakness in the atheist argument. What is moral, if there is no God? What is good, what is evil? So I asked him that question. And, I also threw in the question I ask of every atheist I encounter: Why is there something instead of nothing? Believers have an answer. Non-believers, ultimately, do not.

K
Dear John,

I’m not saying that because religious people sometimes behave badly, therefore God does not exist. My point is that religious belief, particularly the belief in a moral and guiding God, does not seem to produce better behavior overall. If anything, history shows that religious institutions have often been at the center of corruption, oppression, and violence. If God and His holy book were truly transformative in making people moral, we should see a distinct and undeniable moral superiority among believers. But we don’t.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Just because we don’t fully understand why existence exists doesn’t mean we should default to an ancient concept created by humans.

Who decides what is or is not behaving “decently”?

Knowing how to behave decently or morally doesn’t require a god. Societies develop moral and ethical systems based on shared human experiences, empathy, and the need for cooperation. If being decent required God, then people who don’t believe in God should have no moral compass, but we see that atheists and secular societies function just fine with ethical principles. In fact, secular moral philosophy has done a lot of work defining ethical standards without appealing to divine authority.

I used to believe out of fear, you know “eternal punishment”.

That’s the bottom line.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question.

I appreciate it.

John Martignoni
Dear K.,

1) Thanks for the clarification regarding religious people and bad behavior. Here is my counter to your on that point:

"Religious institutions have often been at the center of corruption, oppression, and violence." My response...of course they have. Why? Because religious institutions are made up of fallen, and very flawed, members of the human race - i.e., sinners. However, I would contend that non-religious institutions have, throughout history, more often been at the center of corruption, oppression, and violence than religious institutions have. I would also contend, that religious institutions have more often been at the center of charitable, kind, loving, uplifting, and peaceful corporal and spiritual works than have non-religious institutions throughout history. For example, the hospital system as we know it today...started by the Catholic Church. The university system as we know it today...started by the Catholic Church. A great deal of advancements in math and science have been brought about and supported by Catholics and the Catholic Church. The drive to end slavery - first in England and then in the U.S. - led by Christians. The civil rights movement here in the U.S. - led by Christians. Below are links to two recent studies, one from Britain and the other from the U.S., that show Christians - particularly those who regularly read the Bible - generally give far more to charity than do those who do not practice the faith.

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/committed.churchgoers.give.5.times.more.to.charity/142650.htm
https://www.christianpost.com/news/scripture-engaged-americans-give-more-to-charity-study.html

The Catholic Church, today, through all its various entities, provides shelter, food, education, disaster relief, healthcare, and many other services to more people on this earth than any other institution out there. Do some research on Franklin Graham's Samaritan Purse organization. Check out the charitable work of the Knights of Columbus. And many more religious charitable organizations. All of them are motivated by belief in God. You will find no parallel entities among the non-believing world. Now, that's not to say that atheists do not give to charity and that there are absolutely zero atheist organizations that participate in charitable activities. I assume there probably are. However, there is nothing in the non-believing world to compare to the scope and the magnitude of such organizations in the believing world.

All of which leads me to say that, while there are definitely bad apples in and amongst religious institutions - always have been and always will be - there are also many good apples amongst religious institutions that have contributed immeasurable good to this world over the centuries. Also, on an anecdotal level, I can say that I know many lives that have been changed for the good - mine being one of them - because of belief in God and adherence to His Holy Book. You might want to check out the lives of St. Damien of Molokai and St. Francis of Assisi - look at what they did when they gave their lives totally over to God.

2) "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Non-believers' answer is, essentially, "Well, there just is." But, as you mention, the existence of something doesn't necessarily "prove" that God created the universe. But, let me ask you a few questions. Can a tree create another tree out of nothing? No. Can a rock create another rock out of nothing? No. Can a person create another person out of nothing? No. So, would you agree to a general scientific principle that matter cannot create matter? Science supports me on that. Which means, the "something" - whatever it was - that caused the universe to come into existence, is non-material. Plus, would you agree that whatever it was that caused the universe to come into existence was exceedingly powerful? I mean, it caused the creation of all matter and energy. It had to be pretty powerful. Also, would you say it was ordered? After all, the universe exists only because of a number of finely tuned laws of nature - physical, biological, chemical, mathematical, etc. laws. Furthermore, whatever caused the universe to come into existence, has to be outside of time, since time is a function of the material universe. So, to sum up, I propose to you that the universe came into existence because of "something" that is non-material, powerful, ordered, and eternal. Let me know if you disagree.

3) "Knowing how to behave decently or morally doesn't require a god." I never said it did. What I did say was that, without God, there is no objective standard by which to decide good or evil. Good or evil is completely subjective based on the particular norms of this or that society and/or the individual whims of any given person. For example, a society that determines it is okay to sacrifice babies, or virgins, to its gods - good or evil? If there is no god, then the determining factor you essentially laid out is what any given society decides is good or evil. So, in one society, sacrificing human beings to the deities is good. In another society, it is evil. Completely subjective. What about societies that practice cannibalism? Good or evil? What about societies that send one group of people to gas chambers for being impure human beings? Good or evil? If the society gets to determine good or evil, then what Nazi Germany did to the Jews was completely moral. Do you agree that what Hitler did was moral? If not, then can you give me an objective reason for why it wasn't moral?

And, yes, I know all about secular moral philosophy and things such as Kant's "moral imperatives" and such, but there are fundamental problems with all of that "secular" philosophy. It starts with a particular conclusion, and then tries to build a secular case to reach that conclusion. Secular moral philosophies start with the conclusion that helping each other is "good". You don't kill me and I won't kill you. That's a good thing. But why? What if I'm starving and I want your food, but you don't have enough to share with me so you don't give me any? So I kill you to stay alive. Is that good, or evil? Who decides? The basis of secular "moral" philosophy is: Don't kill me and I won't kill you. The basis of Christian moral philosophy is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They seem similar, but they aren't. The former is all about saving my ass, the latter is all about helping the other.

The other issue I have, is that secular moral philosophy grew out of cultures imbued with religious moral philosophy. They did not develop out of moral vacuums. So, secular moral philosophy started with conclusions drawn from religious morality - Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, etc. - and then tried to come up with a completely non-religious methodology to reach those conclusions. But, no matter how they try to get around it, secular moral philosophy is grounded on completely subjective premises.

Which is why, again, that without God, there is no objective standard by which to decide good and evil.

My Comments
Okay, I misunderstood his initial argument about the bad behavior of believers; however, even though he wasn't directly arguing that believers behaving badly proves God does not exist, it does seem he is arguing that point indirectly. Either way, though, the response here is that Christianity - and the Catholic Church, in particular - has been an overall force for good throughout the last 2000 years of human history, even though believers have, and continue, at times to not behave "decently". We are sinners, after all. Also, there is no equivalent, that I know of, in the non-believing world to all of the good works done by religious institutions, and individual believers, throughout history in total, and on average. And all of those good works are inspired and buttressed by a belief in God and the reading of His book. Which would tend to counter his assertion.

Regarding the question of why there is something instead of nothing, his answer basically is...well, there just is. But, he is right that just because things exist doesn't necessarily mean "we should default to an ancient concept created by humans [the existence of God]," to explain existence. Although, how does he know that this "ancient concept" was "created by humans" as opposed to simply being the truth? I am looking forward to seeing if he answers my question about the "non-material, powerful, ordered, and eternal" "something" that caused the universe to come into being.

Finally, his answer to the question of who gets to decide what is or is not evil, is..."society". Well, isn't that answer purely subjective? I mean, why society and not each individual? And he mentions "secular moral philosophy". Secular moral philosophy, no matter how you try to explain it, justify it, reason it, rationalize it, etc., is, at its root, also purely subjective. Secular moral philosphy always...always...starts off with a purely subjective conclusion as to what is "good," and then it seeks some non-religious path to arrive at that conclusion. Without God, folks, there is no objective good or evil.

K
Dear John,

You never actually answered my question. I asked, “How can you still believe this?” in light of religious leaders constantly being exposed for corruption and evangelicals claiming that Trump, despite his actions, is “God’s chosen.”

Instead, you shifted the focus to morality, charity, and cosmology.

If belief in God truly made people more moral, why do so many who claim to follow Him act in ways that contradict their own teachings? And if evangelicals are wrong about Trump, why doesn’t God set them straight?

At least the Pope gave it a shot, but I don’t believe Trump cares about religious beliefs. He’s in it for himself and evangelicals are helping him because they literally believe he’s their God’s chosen one.

Have you read the book by Mark Taylor,”The Trump Prophecy”. That’s what started it all, evangelicals heard about it and ran for the goal.

That said, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I know these topics are complicated and subjective, and I wasn’t necessarily looking for a deep debate, just venting my frustration. I actually expected a short summary of your thoughts.

I’ve enjoyed reading your newsletter for many years, and I imagine you’re a very busy person, so I feel honored that you’ve taken the time to engage in this discussion with me.

John Martignoni
Dear K.,

Well, I thought I did answer your question directly, but, upon looking back on it, maybe I wasn't as direct as I thought I was.

So, here is my direct answer: I still believe in God because, intellectually, morally, philosophically, scientifically, statistically, historically, etc., it is the only position that makes any sense to me. The evidence for God is so overwhelming, that I am as astonished that there are people who don't believe in God, as you apparently are that there are people who do believe in God. From my perspective, it takes way more faith to not believe in God than it does to believe in God. There is at least evidence for the existence of God upon which one can base their faith; however, I have been presented with very little evidence - none actually - upon which to base one's lack of faith.

I have talked with any number of atheists in the past, and I have never been given any evidence for a lack of belief in God. I've been given plenty of subjective reasons for a lack of belief in God, but never any evidence. And when I've pointed that out to folks - that they are giving me opinions, not evidence - I have been royally cussed at any number of times (so I thank you for your reasonable and mature attitude in this discussion). Essentially, the lack of belief in God is, for all intents and purposes, based on nothing more than blind faith as far as I can tell. That's where I was attempting to get to with my previous responses, so forgive me if I wasn't direct enough in my efforts.

Again, though, I will point out a flaw in your underlying premise. You stated: "If belief in God truly made people more moral, why do so many who claim to follow Him act in ways that contradict their own teachings." The problem with your statement is this: Nowhere does Christianity claim that a belief in God automatically makes people "more moral". Human beings believe in many things that "should" make them change their behavior, but don't. For example, it is pretty much a universal belief that if you smoke you have a very high probability of getting lung cancer. That should result in 0 people ever smoking, right? I mean, who wants lung cancer? Yet, we have millions of people who smoke. Why? Because since the Fall, our intellect and our will are not always in sync one with the other. We often do things we know we shouldn't do, or that we even don't want to do. Our body wages war with our spirit. St. Paul states this in Romans 7:15-19.

Believing in God...reading the Bible...going to church do not somehow "cure" our fallen nature. We are still imperfect, fallen human beings with a sinful nature. We still make mistakes. We still sin. Why? Because we are human. God is perfect, we are not. We are striving for perfection, but precious few of us get there in this lifetime. Plus, you have believers who are at all different points on the spectrum of belief. There are those who are committed to being better. They try and fall and try and fall again...and again...and again. But they keep trying. They take 3 steps forward and two steps back. But, they are progressing. They are indeed better than before they believed, and they are better because they believed.

Then you have believers who are only nominally so. They profess their belief, they say all the right things, they even act in all the right ways...until, some pressure exerts itself on their faith, or some temptation presents itself, and they fall back and/or abandon the faith altogether. As Jesus states in the Parable of the Sower of the Seeds (Matthew 13:18-23) - there are those who believe, but then Satan tempts them away. Then there are those who believe, but trials and persecutions come and they fall away. Then, still, there are those who believe, but the riches and delights of the world choke out their belief and make it unfruitful. That has been so since the beginning of Christianity.

In other words, nowhere is it stated, or even implied, that believing in God somehow cures a person of their imperfections and automatically makes saints out of sinners. Plus, you have that pernicious and outright evil dogma of Protestantism known as "Once Saved, Always Saved," or "Eternal Security". Why do I call it evil? Because belief in this dogma results in people believing that sin has no effect on their salvation. We are saved, or damned, not because of our holiness or our sin, but solely because of whether we profess belief in Jesus Christ or not. Which means - although it is generally unspoken - that a believer can lie, cheat, steal, fornicate, commit adultery, rape, even murder, and they will still go to Heaven as long as they believe in Jesus Christ in their heart as their "personal Lord and Savior".

So, while they profess to be Christian, they believe in something that is antithetical to Christianity...antithetical to the Word of God...and it causes them, in many instances, to not behave as Christians should indeed behave. It causes them to not strive for holiness because they don't believe holiness matters to their salvation. And, if there are no eternal ramifications for sin in one's religion, then what temporal restraints are there to prevent sin in one's religion? It is a work of Satan to make men believe that their sins have no impact on their salvation, thus causing them to often be lackadaisical, even nonchalant, in trying to avoid sin.

However, as I have previously stated - and have offered examples for - from an historical perspective, religious institutions have more often been at the center of charitable, kind, loving, uplifting, and peaceful corporal and spiritual works than not, and especially so vis-a-vis non-religious institutions.

Now, to keep from being too verbose on this particular point, I will simply close this part of my response by reiterating the following points:

1) I came to believe, and still believe, in God because - intellectually, morally, philosophically, scientifically, statistically, historically, etc. - it is the only position that makes any sense to me.

2) There is evidence upon which to base a belief in God; there is none, that I know of, upon which to base a lack of belief in God.

3) Nowhere does Christianity claim that a belief in God automatically makes people "more moral".

4) Religious institutions have more often been at the center of charitable, kind, loving, uplifting, and peaceful corporal and spiritual works than not, and especially so vis-a-vis non-religious institutions.

I hope that answers your question. If not, please let me know.

Now, regarding Evangelicals and Trump, sorry, but I believe Evangelicals have many false beliefs that they erroneously call "Christian" - among them the aforementioned Once Saved Always Saved dogma - and thus I do not subscribe to many things that many Evangelicals believe and teach and practice. So, even though they profess Christianity, they have many beliefs that cause them to distort Christianity. Trump, also, professes to be a Christian - whether he is or not, I don't know. However, he apparently is not fully Christian in his belief system. Whether he is in it for himself - as you claim - or not, I am in no position to judge his heart. Although, if he is in it for himself, he royally screwed up. The man has been through hell the last 10 years. His family has been through hell. They've tried to bankrupt him. To jail him. To humiliate him. To kill him. If he's in it for himself, again, he made a pretty bad decision.

No, I've never read The Trump Prophecy. Never heard of it. But, let me ask you this: Is your lack of belief in God due in some way to your dislike of Trump and the fact that you believe he, as a professing Christian, is "in it for himself"?

I will close by coming back to essentially the question I asked in my last email: If a majority of American society backs Trump, and we have evidence for this based upon the election results as well as recent polls, then isn't everything he is doing moral? I mean, if a society decides its own morality, then isn't Trump acting in a moral manner since he has a majority of the society on his side? And, if he is acting morally, then why are you upset with him? But, if you say he isn't acting in a moral manner, then by what standard are you making that judgment? Maybe he isn't acting according to what you think is moral, but so what? Again the question: In the absence of God, who is it that gets to decide what is or is not moral? I hope you will answer that for me.

My Comments
If his ultimate gripe, or at least one of his main gripes, is that he believes Trump - who professes to be a believer - is acting immorally, along with all the believers who back Trump, then we get back to the question of: Who decides what is moral or immoral? Good or evil? If there is no God, then does Trump not get to decide for himself what is good or is evil? Do the American people not get to decide what is good and what is evil? Do we take a poll to decide? Did Hitler, and German society at the time, not get to decide for themselves what is good or evil?

Do you see what shaky ground the very concept of good and evil is on if there is no God?\

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week. Until next time...

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter