Apologetics for the Masses #505 - (Analysis of) A Conversation With An Atheist (Part 3)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

Pointing out the contradictions in the responses I received in my conversation with a person who is, essentially, an atheist in practice, even though he does not outright reject the idea of a higher power.

General Comments

Hey folks,

Please say a prayer for our current evangelization project - mailing out my The Roman (Catholic) Road to Salvation tract to the 7700 homes and businesses in the 35094 zip code (Leeds, Alabama - where my parish is located - and the surrounding area). It's taken me a few weeks, but I've finally gotten things worked out with the Post Office and I just got the tracts back from the printer in a form that is suitable for mass mailing. So, the tracts should go out, barring any other obstacles, this coming week.

I don't know what kind of response I'll get, since this is the first time to do something like this, but, it's not about the response I get, is it? Nope...it's about planting seeds. Mother Angelica, when told that she was sending some of her EWTN radio signal out to places around the world where no one will get it, would say, essentially, that it didn't matter. The Word was going out, and that was what mattered. Well, we're sending the Word out. So, again, please pray for this effort. Pray that the Holy Spirit can use the mailing of this tract to move some people along a path that will bring them closer to, and maybe even into, the Catholic Faith.

Introduction

Last issue I gave you a test of sorts - try to figure out the contradiction at the core of the arguments being made by the atheist (or practical atheist) with whom I was having a conversation. Didn't have a whole lot of folks who decided to send me their thoughts on the matter, but of the ones that did, they all made valid observations. There was one, however, that nailed it a little more specifically than anyone else, so he will be receiving the grand prize.

Anyway, in this issue I'll be giving you my thoughts on the underlying contradiction - the underlying problem - in "K's" arguments, and a few other ways in which his arguments went off the tracks a bit. One of the main things I want you to take note of, though, is how the main problem with K's arguments is, essentially, the main problem in the arguments of each and every Protestant with whom you would ever engage in a conversation about religion. The reason for that is, that anti-truth - whether it is atheist anti-truth or Protestant anti-truth or whatever other kind of anti-truth - all spring from the same root...a rejection of authority.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

I'll just get right to it by saying that the underlying problem in K's arguments, is the same as the underlying problem in any and all Protestant arguments - a lack of authority. This problem of a lack of authority manifests itself in a few different ways in the things he said.

First, there is the problem with his answers to my question about who decides what is and is not moral...what is or is not evil. I mean, if you're going to be accusing people of not being moral, well, on what do you base your definition of morality? When I first asked him that question, his answer was: "Societies develop moral and ethical systems based on shared human experiences, empathy, and the need for cooperation." But then, I pointed out to him that there are societies that have thought human sacrifices to their gods were a good thing, and societies that thought cannibalism was a good thing, and, the example I always go to, German society in the 1930's and 40's thought killing Jews was a good thing - as does Gazan society in the current day.

And I asked him if those things were good/moral, since the societies that perpetrated them thought they were, and, after all, he had said that it was "societies" that developed moral and ethical systems. That's when he answered with: "I believe that morality must transcend societal trends and be based on principles that are more than just what the majority wants at a given time. These principles should prioritize human dignity, fairness, honesty, and kindness." All of a sudden the definition of what is good/evil - moral/immoral - went from being decided at the societal level to being decided at the individual level...by him.

In other words, there is a huge contradiction here. At first, moral authority was vested in society. But, when I demonstrated that societies could consider as good, that which I knew he would consider as evil, then moral authority was no longer vested in society. So, where was it vested now? In him, essentially. He is the one who decides what the definition of morality is or is not. "I believe" he said. The definition of morality depends, apparently, on what he "believes". If entire societies, entire peoples, entire religions disagree with him, that doesn't matter. He's right and everybody else is wrong. The problem is, what he believes about the definition of morality - that it should prioritize human dignity, fairness, honesty, and kindness - is completely subjective. Why should morality prioritize those particular things? Who says so? By what authority do you make that claim? Why shouldn't morality prioritize whatever makes me or my tribe wealthy? Or gives me or my tribe power? Why shouldn't morality be all about whatever makes me feel good and enriches my life?

Furthermore, who decides what human dignity is? Who decides what is fair or not? What is honest or not? What is kind or not? Aren't those all subjective considerations? For example, is killing a baby in the womb so as to prevent it from growing up in a broken home and probably having a miserable childhood...is that kind? Is euthanizing a person who is suffering from severe depression...kind? Is euthanizing an elderly person with dementia...kind? After all, you're killing them to prevent suffering...surely that is a kind thing to do, right? Who decides?

What "K" is not recognizing, is that without God - and, specifically, without the Judeo/Christian God - morality becomes completely subjective. He has defined it in a particular way, but...who cares how he defines it? Muslims don't. Hindus don't. I would bet many atheists and agnostics don't. Now, I'm sure - based on what he has previously stated - that "K" will argue that his definition of morality is based on secular humanist principles - secular moral philosophy - that can be arrived at without any appeal to the existence of God. But, as I stated earlier in our conversation, this whole idea of a secular philosphy that builds a system of morality without any reference to God, has a few problems. The first problem is, the system starts with a conclusion as to what is or is not "good" - for example, kindness, respecting human dignity, not killing each other - and then tries to build a completely secular methodology to come to that conclusion. But the conclusion is, in and of itself, completely subjective.

Secondly, these secular philosphies did not emanate from moral vacuums, they grew out of societies and cultures and philosophies that were completely imbued with Christian morality. So the folks who came up with these secular moral philosophies are doing nothing more than borrowing their moral conclusions from Christianity, and then attempting to build a case for how to get to those conclusions by leaving God completely out of the picture. They're stealing from Christianity in order to build a supposedly secular moral system, in which stealing is wrong. I mean "K" himself was undoubtedly influenced by his Christian upbringing in order to come to the conclusion that morality should be concerned with kindness, human dignity, fairness, and honesty. The influence Christianity had on him has given him - whether he realizes it or not - his "moral compass". The problem is, he has allowed the sins of others to pull him away from the God who has objectively defined what is or not moral or immoral...what is or is not good or evil...the God Who has established the true North to which "K's" moral compass points.

The evidence I offer to support what I just said about secular philosophy, comes from nature. Look at the animal kingdom. Is one animal killing another seen as being "immoral" or "evil"? No. Is a sheep rejecting a sickly lamb viewed as being "immoral" or "evil"? No. Is a strong lion driving a weaker starving lion away from its kill seen as "immoral" or "evil"? No. It's just nature. There is no good or evil in nature. So, if there is no God to give us an objective moral code, and we humans are just another part of nature - nothing more - then why is one human killing another human seen as immoral/evil by secular philosophy? Why is one human not sharing his resources with another human seen as immoral/evil by secular philosophy? Why is a mother abandoning her child seen as immoral/evil by secular philosophy? Why? Because of the influence of Christian morality. Period. "K's" secular moral philosophy is formed, at its core, by the Christian philosophy he now rejects. Another contradiction.

There is a name for a philosophy that is purely secular - Darwinism. The strong shall survive. Survival of the fittest. There is nothing of what we consider "moral" in Darwinism. In other words, there is no such thing as a secular "morality" that is anything but completely subjective and contrived. Somebody, somewhere, has made a subjective decision about what is right/wrong, moral/immoral, good/evil - and then they have tried to justify that subjective decision through all sorts of intellectual wrangling devoid of God. In the end, though, in any secular system of morality, since it is completely subjective, the person - or persons - with the most power, gets to decide what is good and what is evil. Might makes right. All of which is to say, that there is no such thing as a purely secular "morality" that can in any way be considered objective.

And how is that like Protestantism? Well, why do we have tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of divisions (aka denominations) within Protestantism? The rejection of authority. First, the Deformers rejection of God's authority as exercised within and through the Catholic Church. Then, the rejection of countless individuals within Protestantism of their pastors' authority which led them to create their own denominations. Protestant theology, where it deviates from Catholic theology, is completely subjective. Belief in this or that Protestant dogma or doctrine is based entirely on this or that Protestant's fallible subjective interpretation of the Bible. And Protestant theology is rife with contradiction after contradiction. When you reject the authority of God - Who cannot contradict Himself - your life...your beliefs...your philosophy..your theology...become filled with contradictions. That's true whether your Protestant or atheist - or a cafeteria Catholic - or whatever.

Another place where his answer, or lack thereof, was like Protestantism, was in his response to my question about why there is something (i.e., the universe) instead of nothing: "Just because we don’t fully understand why existence exists..." For those who do not believe that God created the universe, the only answer to that question they can ultimately come up with is: "Well, there just is." But they can't tell you why. Just so Protestants, when asked the question: How did we get the Bible? can't answer the question. You claim your entire religion is based on the Bible, but you can't tell me exactly where the Bible came from? What's wrong with that?

Now, many Protestants will say, "It came from the Church." Okay. What church? When? Where? How? They have this amorphous idea of the church giving us the Bible, but someone in the church had to say: "These books are the inspired, inerrant, Word of God." Who in the church did that? What authority did they have to do that? Or, they'll say, "God gave us the Bible." Okay, how did He do that? Did it fall out of the sky one day? Did he give all of the early Christians visions as to what books were and were not the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? How, exactly, did God give us the Bible? What was the mechanism He used to do that?

Other Protestants will say that we have the Bible based on "the witness of the early Christians". Okay. Which Christians, specifically? Give me names. When did they decide? How did they decide? What authority did they have to decide which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?

Just as atheists/agnostics cannot explain where their very existence comes from, Protestants cannot explain where the book, by which they justify their very existence, comes from. Protestants are basically saying, like "K" did, "Just because we don’t fully understand why [the Bible] exists..."

Some other things to consider in "K's" arguments. While he did directly address several of my questions and arguments - and kudos to him for doing so - he didn't actually address the questions and arguments that were in direct response to his main arguments against the God of Christianity, which had to do with the behavior of Christians. He seemed to be saying that because of the poor witness of Christians, then Christianity - which says that those who have faith should do good not evil - could not be true: " My point is that religious belief, particularly the belief in a moral and guiding God, does not seem to produce better behavior overall." But then, in another place, he acknowledges that belief in God doesn't necessarily make a person moral: " I never suggested belief in God or Jesus should automatically make someone moral. What I was referring to is the seeming inconsistency between professing faith and living in a way that aligns with that faith. You mentioned, “Nowhere does Christianity claim that a belief in God automatically makes people ‘more moral,’” and I agree that belief alone doesn’t guarantee moral behavior."

So, there is a seeming contradiction there that I never got the chance to flush out, but the response I did give him about faith in Christ causing one to be more moral, was never responded to by him, even though I brought it up more than once. The example I gave him of the Catholic Church and all the charitable and humanitarian works that it does, and has done, around the world, and all motivated because of a belief in Christ. Or the massive amounts of charitable works of the Knights of Columbus, and organizations such as Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse - all motivated because of faith in Christ. And how faith in Christ has personally made me, and lots of people I know, better. And I gave him the examples of just a couple of saints, although there are thousands of the lives of saints that he could look into, that directly contradict his conclusions about belief in Christ not making a difference.

Immeasurable good done by Christians, that has no secular parallel, that I know of, to which one could point as countering the claim it is belief in Christ that results in these works. Yet, he had no response. I hope one day he comes across the story of St. Lawrence, a deacon of Rome. If you've never heard it, you can read about him here: St. Lawrence, deacon.

One last thing to mention about my conversation with "K," is that he never responded to my argument about how "the universe came into existence because of 'something' that is non-material, powerful, ordered, and eternal." I was really looking forward to how he might respond to that.

To summarize: whether talking to atheist, agnostic, or Protestant, remember that all it takes - because of their rejection of authority - is one or two questions to get them to contradict themselves. So ask questions. But, pay close attention to what they say in response to your questions in order to root out the contradiction. The contradictions are there - I guarantee it! And when you do catch them in a contradiction, and you point it out to them, you could very well plant a seed, because a belief system that has contradictions in it is a belief system not worthy of belief.

Oh, and don't forget to ask Protestants about where their Bible came from...

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week! Next issue, probably in two weeks as I'm having to do some work this week to get my house ready to go on the market, will be on the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Please pray for me that I can get all the work done on my house that it needs.

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