Answering Atheism Part 3

This is the final installment of our answers to the group Atheists United's article Questions About Your Belief. Dealing with such questions is a little maddening, but I really want to do it with gentleness and respect. I can do that if I think they are sincere, but some of these questions ooze ignorance and arrogance. I suspect they are not asked in "good faith," but I have answered them in hopes that they might not trouble others.

Answering Atheism (Pt. 3)

There is an organization in Los Angeles called Atheists United (AU). I recently happened upon their website and an article entitled Some Questions About Your Belief. In it, they pose a number of questions, 37 to be exact about belief in God. This is the last in a series that seeks to provide an answer. For other answers in this series, see Pt. 1 and Pt. 2.

24) If you demand that the atheist disprove the Judeo-Christian God, are you prepared to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra and all the other ancient gods and goddesses?
If I lived in a society in which I encountered a significant number of people who believed in Zeus, I would take the time to examine their belief and determine if there was any evidence for it. Since I live in twenty-first century America, not first-century Greece, I don't have any pressing need to make a case against Zeus. (That case was made then quite well and does not need to be rehashed, does it?) Certainly, if I went around proclaiming that Zeus didn't exist, I would be prepared to give reasons for that claim.
I should add that it isn't quite right to say that Christians demand that atheists disprove God's existence. Rather, we ask atheists to examine the evidence honestly and see where it leads.

25) Why is the number of atheists in prisons disproportionally much smaller than their numbers in the general population?
I will assume for the sake of argument that this claim is correct and that it refers to prisons in America, and not, say, in China (where various religions are criminalized but atheism is not). I do not claim that any and every religion is better than atheism. I'd rather you be an atheist than a member of a dangerous religious cult, for example. Nor do I claim that being religious makes a person better necessarily than all atheists. As for your statistics, in America atheists tend to be white, middle-class people, whereas prisoners in America are disproportionately non-white and lower-class. So I am not sure if this statistical claim is significant, even assuming for sake of argument that it is true.
If you mean to imply by your question that atheism leads to a more peaceful, moral, law-abiding, and socially beneficial life, then I have a few questions: Why, according to reports, did Columbine High School killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris ask their classmates why they believed in God just prior to blowing their brains out? Why did mass murderer/cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer explain his awful acts to Stone Phillips by saying, “When you don’t believe in God there are no rules”? And finally, why do I see hospitals, orphanages, homeless shelters, alcoholic treatment programs, and all sorts of other socially redemptive institutions with names like “St. Jude’s,” “Good Shepherd,” “Our Lady of Peace,” “Baptist Memorial,” etc. but none named “No God”? It is hard to imagine what this world would be like if Jesus had never been born.

26) Is the brutal, vengeful and bloodthirsty God as depicted in the Old Testament still a loving God?
This is another loaded question. The God of the Old Testament is not brutal, vengeful, or bloodthirsty. This is a caricature that ignores the contexts in which God commanded people to be put to death.
Anyone who is really interested in getting answers to questions like these about the Bible has a wealth of resources available. One that I especially recommend is Gleason L. Archer's fine reference book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

27) Should any religion that demands we elevate faith over reason be trusted?
I wouldn't put the question that way. Any religion that demands that we elevate faith over TRUTH should certainly not be trusted. Any religion that demands that we elevate human reason over God's revelation should also not be trusted. As a parent, I have every right to ask my children to trust me when they don't understand something fully. Likewise, God has every right to ask us to trust him in matters beyond our capacity to understand fully. But this does not mean elevating faith over reason, but rather using reason as a tool to know whom I ought to believe.

28) How can the same God that, according to the Old Testament, killed everybody on Earth except for eight people be considered as anything other than evil?
The question assumes that the rest of humanity didn't deserve to die. How does the inquirer know that they didn't? Does he think that nobody ever deserves to die? Would he treat Sadaam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler with indifference? The God who observed life on earth prior to the flood says that the whole of humanity was rotten to the core, that every imagination of their heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6.5). A God who could ignore such evil would be evil indeed. The God of the Bible is not such a God. Your question also betrays a skepticism regarding the story of Noah and the flood. You should really look at the evidence for the Genesis Flood.

29) Is the acceptance of religious mysticism, magic and miracles consistent with our understanding of good mental health?
This question is too loaded to be answered simply. Superstitious acceptance of paranormal claims is certainly unhealthy. On the other hand, cautious acceptance of well-attested supernatural claims that fit into a broader, well-evidenced world view (such as Christian theism) is consistent with good mental health. It could be argued that an atheistic world view is inconsistent with good mental health.

30) Must we hate our families and ourselves in order to be good Christians?

(Luke 14:26)
The question misunderstands the Hebrew idiom here, in which "hate" is meant relatively, as being willing to give up something for the object of one's primary and unconditional love. So, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not mean that a person must literally hate money in order to love God, but that he must be willing to go without money if that's what is required in order to remain faithful to God (Matt. 6:24). There are many hard sayings in the Bible, but you can avail yourself of many sources to understand them. Is it not self-evident that the One who said we must love our neighbor would not say that we should not love our family?

31) Since the ancient world abounded with tales of resurrected Savior-Gods that were supposed to have returned from the dead to save humanity, why is the Jesus myth any more reliable than all the others?
Your premise is false. Besides, we have good historical evidence that Jesus was a real man, that he really died, and that his immediate followers very soon after began proclaiming that they had seen him alive after his death and burial. In other words, the origin of the Jesus narrative is the eyewitness testimony of the Jewish men and women who knew and encountered Jesus, not pagan myths. The so-called savior-god stories of ancient myths do not have that kind of evidential credibility. For an introduction to the evidence for Jesus, I recommend The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, by Gary R. Habermas. On Jesus' resurrection specifically, I heartily recommend Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, moderated by William F. Buckley Jr. and edited by Paul Copan.

32) If the Bible is the standard for morality, why does it not forbid slavery and war?
The Bible forbids the slave trade expressly, i.e., it forbids kidnapping or stealing people in order to sell them into slavery (Exodus 21:16). What it permits is better termed indentured servanthood, the contractual selling of one's labor to another for a period of time (usually seven years) or, on a voluntary basis, for life. As for war,it is not always wrong to wage war. It is wrong to wage wars of aggression against legitimate nations in order to steal people's land and property.

33) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why does it contain so many factual errors, such as the two contradictory accounts of Creation in Genesis?
Genesis does not contain two contradictory accounts of creation. Genesis 1 gives an orderly account of the creation of the universe, earth, and life on earth. Genesis 2 gives a more narrowly focused account of the creation of the first man and woman. One is the floodlight, revealing the entire stage; the other is the spotlight, drawing attention to one specific character or event. The entire book of Genesis follows this pattern of giving a broad survey and then returning to focus on one special character or event. This worn out criticism has been answered scores of times by conservative commentators on the Genesis Record. If I know about your views, why do you seem entirely unaware of mine? I should think if you are going to go public with these questions you would first take a look at the answers that have been around for a hundred years and longer.

34) Why isn't the Bible written in a straightforward way that leaves no doubt about what it means?
There are a variety of answers to this question. Much of the Bible is very straightforward, yet people insist on twisting what it says (as some of the questions already answered illustrate). Much of the Bible deals with matters so profound and difficult for human minds that misunderstanding is unavoidable. Some parts of the Bible seemed much more straightforward to ancient minds than they do to some of us today.
The key is to apply proper principles of interpretation to apparently problematic passages in the Bible. These principles are generally the same for the Bible as they are for other writings: know the historical situation; identify the genre; consider the context; recognize different uses of language. An excellent book dealing with these matters is Grasping God's Word.

35) The last time Christianity attained total power, it resulted in the Dark Ages, so why should we expect anything different from Christian fundamentalists today?
First of all, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, it did so in a civilization that was already accustomed to the state exercising significant control in matters of religion. That is to say, it was Roman governmental tradition, not the Bible or Christian religious tradition, that fostered state controls of religion in the Middle Ages. Second, the so-called Dark Ages weren't all that bad. Many civil reforms of a positive nature were instituted under Christian rulers during the period from Constantine to Charlemagne and beyond. Third, conservative evangelical Christians (often called fundamentalists) believe in a division of church and state institutions. The American vision of church-state separation originated historically from Christian beliefs, such as those of the Baptists and the Friends. Fourth, most American evangelicals are strong advocates of democratic forms of government and of the conservative principles of limited government, which by definition preclude Christians gaining "total power." (The exceptions among American evangelicals in this regard are, ironically, evangelicals on the political left, not the "right-wing fundamentalists" that are so often pilloried in the media.)

36) Has anyone ever been killed in the name of atheism?
Yes. The Marxist governments of the former Soviet Union, especially under Lenin, and of Communist China, during the twentieth century oppressed, persecuted, and killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of an explicitly atheistic materialistic philosophy of government. Of course, those governments do not represent all atheists. Nor do governments that kill in the name of Christ represent all Christians.

37) Why does history show that every time a fundamentalist religion has gained power, tyranny and persecutions have soon followed?
The term "fundamentalist" here is too vague, and the instances of Christian fundamentalism exercising dominant political power in a nation too rare, for such a generalization to be defensible or meaningful as far as Christianity is concerned.

Answering Atheism Part 2

If you missed the first installment of our answer to LA's Atheists United, start your reading here. We will continue here with the remainder of our answers to some reasonable and some mind-numbingly dumb questions!

Answering Atheism (Pt. 2)

13) Can a God who would abandon His children when they needed him the most still be considered all good?
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. How do you know that God has abandoned His children when they needed Him the most? When do human beings need God most? Surely you have read, heard, or otherwise been exposed to the poem Two Sets of Footprints! It may seem cheesy, but it conveys a truth that God’s children have testified to throughout the millennia. If His own children say He has not left them, who are you to say that He has?
According to biblical doctrine, you have always been estranged from God; only those who have once been reconciled are in any position to say whether or not that reconciliation ever came to an end. Were you ever assured of your Father/child relationship with God? On what basis? Not everyone is a child of God, but only those who have believed the gospel (John 1.12). To those, He has promised, “I will never leave you or forsake you” (Hebrews 13.5).
If there is adequate evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, we should take its statements as valid evidence even above the subjective “feelings of abandonment” that might exist in the mind of God’s child. I recall an incident when, as a young boy, I thought my mother had left me. Of course she hadn’t, and she never would have done that. My fears of abandonment were not based on reality, and they did not affect my mother’s determination to always be there for me. To find out if the Bible is worthy of our trust, check out The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Standing on the Rock, or Science and the Bible.

14) If something is not rational, should it be believed anyway?
It depends on what is meant by "not rational." If something is not rationally explicable to our minds, but there is good evidence of its actuality, we should believe it. I believe in TVs, radios, telephones, etc. There is abundant evidence for them, but I will probably never understand how these things can be. On the other hand, if something is not supported by good evidence and involves claims that are actually irrational, it should not be believed.
Kenneth D. Boa and Rob Bowman have written a full-length textbook on questions relating to reason, evidence, and faith. Get that book, called Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity, and you will see that there is nothing irrational about my faith.

15) If the God of the Bible is all good, why does He himself say that He created evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
In context, the statement in Isaiah 45:7 is a denial of dualism, the theory that an evil god is responsible for all the bad that happens while a good god is responsible only for the nice, pleasant things that happen. The Lord is claiming responsibility for all creation and letting Israel know that when they suffer, it is His judgment, not “dumb luck” or the work of another “god.” Indeed, it could not be another, for “I am the LORD and there is none else” (vs. 6).
Notice we are talking about suffering, not moral evil. When God judges sin, His judgment or chastisement is sometimes called “evil,” because it seems so bad to those who are on the receiving end (cf. Hebrews 12.11). God, though, is morally perfect and is not the author of sin. There is really no moral connotation intended in the word “evil” (Hebrew, ra) as used in Isaiah 45.7. The parallelism in the verse should make that clear. There are two sets of contrasts in the verse:”I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil.” As expected, “light” is contrasted to “darkness, but notice that the opposite of “evil” is not “good,” but “peace.” “Evil,” then, is not moral wickedness, as your question assumes, but, as most modern versions translate the Hebrew word here, the meaning is “calamity,” “judgment,” or “trouble.”
On the question of evil and the goodness of God, see my short article here. To keep from making similar mistakes with other biblical texts, you should get When Critics Ask, by Norm Geisler and Tom Howe. This book takes the "problem texts" of the Bible most often cited by critics and explains their proper interpretation. Perhaps it will save you from making charges based on ignorance of the Bible's meaning.

16) Is there a better way than reason to acquire knowledge and truth?
No. Reason is the sole tool to be used in the pursuit of knowledge of the truth, but reason that is completely functional sifts all the evidence that is presented to it. It considers all sources of information, including experiences, conscience, and the testimonies of others, especially the testimony that purports to come from a Divine Being. This is the reasonable thing to do! God expects people to use reason correctly. The greatest commandment is that we should love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, strength, and MIND. The Lord’s invitation is “Come, let us REASON together” (Isaiah 1.18). Atheists do not have a monopoly on intelligence, and the implication of these two questions (16 and 17) that they do is extremely naive. For instance, the fathers of modern science were overwhelmingly believers in God, as noted in the book Men of Science, Men of God.

17) If you would answer #16 with faith, then why are there so many contradictory faiths in the world?
You will notice I did not answer that question with "faith." “Faith” would be a nonsensical answer! Faith is not a means for the acquisition of knowledge; it is, rather, the appropriate response to knowledge about someone upon whom you must depend. When reason has found sufficient evidence to arrive at the proper conclusion, faith is the proper response. There are contradictory "faiths" (i.e., religions) in the world because people generally depend on their own experiences or reasoning as the basis for their beliefs rather than God's revelation. This is true also of those forms of Christianity that deny the complete reliability of the Bible. People that include in their reasoning the information contained in the Bible are, as James Montgomery Boice has shown, Standing on The Rock of revelation and can be sure of the truth of what they believe. Religious systems that do not stand on such a foundation are bound to be contradictory to one another and to the system that does rely on the Bible.

18) Is comfort more important to you than intellectual integrity?
Absolutely not! That's why I believe in the Christian message even though at first I found some elements of its teaching emotionally uncomfortable, and even though my Christian values constantly challenge me, because my behavior and attitudes are not always consistent with those values.
To your implied charge that the Bible writers invented God because they somehow needed the comfort, I would ask you this: If comfort was the object, why did they invent a God that scares the living begeezus out of us? The God that Christians believe in is a formidable Deity that inspires paralyzing fear in the hearts of all to whom He appears (see Isaiah 6, Acts 9, Revelation 1, etc.). No, if God were an invention to put our hearts at ease, we would have made Him like Santa Clause or sweet Uncle Freddie, not like Yahweh Adonai (the LORD God). One who truly understands The Holiness of God knows how uncomfortable it can be to be around the God of the Bible! But Truth, not comfort, is the real issue.

19) If you believe, as many do, that all religions worship the same God under different names, how do you explain the existence of religions which have more than one god, or Buddhism, which, in its pure form, has no god?
I don't believe that all religions worship the same God under different names. Religions that have more than one God, that have no God, or that have a different God than the God revealed in the Bible are false religions. That would be every religion except Christianity.

20) What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
The evidence that presently convinces me of the truth of Christianity would have to be given a better explanation than the Christian explanation, and I would need to see that there is more evidence against Christianity than in support of it. How do you propose to explain, just for starters, the scientific accuracy of a book written in pre-scientific times, fulfilled prophecy, the remarkable life and teachings of Jesus, the empty tomb, the eyewitness testimonies of divine miracles, the multiplied millions of changed lives, and the inexplicable origin of the church after her Leader was publicly disgraced by a brutal flogging and a criminal crucifixion?
Since you brought it up, I wonder what it would take to convince an atheist that he is wrong. Some atheists answer that the only thing that would convince them is a miracle that they were privileged to witness, one that could not be ascribed to anything but a supernatural God. I am not sure that any miracle, short of being ushered into God's presence for judgment, would ever qualify, for a determined atheist could come up with ad hoc naturalistic explanations for the parting of the Red Sea and the resurrection of Jesus. If a miracle did occur to convince such atheists, what would they tell their friends, their children, and their grandchildren? Presumably they would want others to believe what they saw. But that is exactly the same as the evidence we have in the Bible. It gives us eyewitness reports from honest, reliable sources that tell of stupendous miracles. If the converted atheist’s children and grandchildren turned out to be as difficult to convince as he had been, God would have to perform endless miracles. No one’s eyewitness testimony would be enough. If God were to start giving in to each person's demand for a personal demonstration of His existence, there would be no stopping. Miracles would become commonplace, and because of that they would lose their evidential value. So the question of what it would take to convince one of the wrongness of his view seems to be a more difficult one for the atheist than for the Christian.

21) If nothing can convince you that you are wrong, then why should your faith be considered anything other than a cult?
Your anticipation of how I will answer your questions betrays a very poor understanding of the Christian faith. If I denied the possibility of being convinced that I am wrong, then I would indeed be exhibiting a cultic mentality. However, I am open to being convinced that I am wrong. Go ahead; convince me! If questions like these are your best shot, though, I am fairly confident that you are not going to persuade me of the “error of my ways.”

22) If an atheist lives a decent, moral life, why should a loving, compassionate God care whether or not we believe in Him/Her/It?
God created you for the express purpose of living in a relationship with him. Suppose a child grew up in a home with his mother and several other children. Suppose the child ate the mother's food, wore the clothes she provided, slept in the bed she made for him, and played with the toys she gave him. Suppose also that the child got along decently with the other children. However, the child ignored the mother. He never spoke to her, never acknowledged all she did for him. When his siblings scolded him for his lack of gratitude and love for his mother, he denied that she was his mother, even claiming that there was no mother. He even suggested to his siblings that they were being irrational in expressing their dependence on their mother. Would the mother care? Of course she would! That child would be living in deliberate denial and rebellion.
From another perspective, the Bible tells us that no one lives a “decent, moral life” in the absolute sense. When we measure ourselves against one another, then we can speak in these terms; but when we measure ourselves against the perfections of God, we realize that we are hopelessly lost rebels against God and that only His undeserved love (grace) will save us.

23) Why do so many religious people thank God when they survive a disaster, yet fail to be angry with him for causing the disaster in the first place?
If a child gets into trouble and his father bails him out, the child is properly grateful. If a child gets into trouble and his father chooses not to bail him out, the child is not justified in being angry with his father.
The question is loaded in that it assumes that God "causes" disasters in some direct sense. God rules over the universe and everything that happens in it occurs "on His watch," as it were, but that does not mean that He directly causes everything that happens. God certainly does not cause the evil acts that people do, nor did He cause the fall of our first parents that threw the planet, indeed the entire cosmos, into rebellion against her Creator. When the storm threatened to sink the boat in which Jesus rode, it was certainly not the Father seeking to drown the Son; and when Jesus commanded the storm to cease, it was not the Son commanding the Father to do His bidding. The point is that there are other forces besides God, forces both natural and supernatural, involved in the catastrophic incidents that happen in a fallen world. C. S. Lewis, who once doubted the existence of God as much as you, wrote a classic on this Problem of Pain.

For questions 24-37, see Answering Atheism (Pt. 3).