For those of us who identify ourselves as believers, today is a celebration of the defining event of our faith. After all, the cross means nothing without the empty tomb. And while it continues to be less and less popular to put one’s faith in a supposedly unseen God, I’ve never been one to court popularity. As anyone who knew me in high school can confirm. But I would rather put my hope in Jesus than Christopher Hitchens.
For those wondering what all the fuss is about, I suggest picking up something by C. S. Lewis. Perhaps The Screwtape Letters or Mere Christianity. Or if you want something a little more contemporary, check out the The Case for… series by Lee Strobel or Letters from a Skeptic by Gregory Boyd. Just remember, nothing will ever sway a closed mind or heart.
Happy Easter and God bless,
Fox
Thank you! I have a son who is seriously questioning, and will definitely drop some of these on his nightstand.
You do know that Strobel’s work isn’t considered to be all that persuasive an argument by the garden-variety atheist. It is written with a Christian audience in mind, regardless of what the author might say to the contrary. You read it as a Christian, that certainly puts a spin in your opinion of the book. You believed it 100% factual before opening it. The non-believer will be on the other end of the spectrum.
If you want to reach a non-believer, it won’t be by attempting to use science or archeological evidence to sway them. The average atheist is more than aware of the archeological evidence unearthed in the past 100 years and the damage it has done to the concept of biblical inerrancy. Your run-of-the-mill agnostic knows what science has to say about the Flood and YEC. You won’t reach them by attacking gays via the media or making claims as to how Jesus would vote or by promising eternal damnation in a hell they don’t believe exists (or for that matter we can be sure Jesus believed existed either).
You can’t simply throw scripture at them. They know it every bit as well as you do as a rule.
It can only happen if, by and large, Christians around the world live as Jesus taught (not so much how Paul or Calvin and co. did). Know them by their fruits, right? The fruits have fallen from the tree and rotted in the eyes of the non-believer. More than the words of a lawyer playing amateur archeologist will be needed to undo the resulting damage.
Graham,
I agree with you that most powerful argument for Christ is for Christians to live a Christ-like life, and that, on the historical whole, Christendom has done a relatively poor job of displaying such characteristics. I would disagree with the Paul comment, and don’t have enough knowledge of Calvin beyond his basic “Calvanist” principles to offer an opinion there.
But I think you failed to see the target of my post. I realize anyone who has taken the time to choose to be an atheist or agnostic (as opposed to someone who just says “I don’t think there’s a God because I just don’t”) will be fairly set in their beliefs and less likely to be persuaded by apologetic literature or even scripture. But the “knowledgeable atheist” crowd isn’t close to being the bulk of non-believing society. Most of the people I know who aren’t Christians simply haven’t bothered themselves with thinking about such issues. Or if they have, it’s been a cursory survey of spiritual things at best.
Regarding Strobel: Although I think the man is a fairly decent writer, it’s the heft of the words of the people he interviews that carries the weight of argument. Of course they’re believers. Of course they have a point of view. But so does the atheist.
And frankly, I think science has done more harm to the cause of atheism in the last hundred years than vice versa.
Thanks for reading.
Fox
Well, I must give props to you for you honest perspective on your faith.
I noticed you referred to atheists having “beliefs” – this is true. They believe there is no god. But atheist can also mean agnostic or “soft” atheist – one who does not make claims based upon belief…or is at least more aware of when they do.
I fall into the second category. And I would say that this “knowledgeable” group is in the majority or, at least, a very large minority. Most were once Christians who, through study, found too many flaws in their faith to continue in it.
More on personal experience – my data set: Must if not all Christian I know inherited their belief system when they were too young to truly choose for themselves. Later some my believe they made a choice to continue, but the choice, in my opinion was made for them by their parents long ago. Most know very little about their faith. They are saved. Game over. Move on. This is a very common Evangelical trait. It leads to larger intellectual incuriousocity – (wait, new word?)
Just my experience though.
I don’t believe in the “of course” part of your statement about Strobel. Armstrong and other serious scholars on the matter present evidence without agenda…or at least they try. I believe this elevates such work far beyond that of Zacharias and Strobel (throw Behe in there just for fun). Their audience is the believer and non-believer alike. This is a much higher standard and is much more likely to have suffered the slings and arrows of some manner of peer review.
Also, how has science done damage to atheism? More importantly, how has it help theism?
Remember, their is a wide gap between atheist (defined as one that BELIEVES there is no God – somewhat arrogant in my opinion) and agnostic – one who simply states he doesn’t know (and neither does anybody else). Agnostics might find religion to be false based on facts at hand but consider possibility of something you could call “God” plausible or at least not impossible.
Thanks for the refreshing and thoughtful exchange.
Graham,
Just saw your comment, so I apologize for the delayed response. I only get notified of spam comments for some reason.
Anyway, I’ll readily admit that most believers from Catholics to Evangelicals to Orthodox to whatever have an overall poor understanding of their faith, as you said. They do not, as Paul instructs, stand ready to give an adequate defense of their faith. These people remain “babes in Christ” for their entire lives. And while it’s good that they believe and accept Christ, they are truly missing out on what a real walk with God could be. I think (guess) that many do this simply out of ignorance, while others discover just how hard such a walk can be and decide that, to be blunt, playing Christian is good enough. I’ve been in that camp before and I hope I never go back (or am there now without realizing it — ha!).
I did not inherit my beliefs from my parents. We didn’t begin going to church until just after my eighth birthday. My mom and dad became Christians just a few weeks before I did. I made the decision on my own — they were still figuring out what it meant to be Christians themselves and didn’t particularly know what to do with my brother and I except brings us along to Sunday school. I then had my biggest “crisis of faith” in college and found my beliefs strengthened rather than diminished — something that has occurred to a lesser a degree a couple of times in the intervening years.
I don’t pretend to have read even a cursory survey of apologetics or scholarly books. I do know that for every so-called “error” a friend has tossed me through the years, I’ve been able to find what I believe a valid explanation (whether textual, contextual, historical or whatnot). Of course, me find what I consider a valid answer has rarely swayed my friendly combatant.
I don’t keep up with the sciences as much as I used to — kids have a way of stripping away hobbies. But I do believe, for example, that the more we discover about cell structure, the more its workings point toward a creator.
I’m fading quickly, so I hope this rambling was at least semi-coherent. Thanks again for reading.
Fox
We agree it seems on the unfortunate tendency of the faithful to spend their lives woefully uninformed on matters of their faith.
As for your path being one of choice, though this may be true for you, I don’t think it can be debated that many people claiming to be Christians in this country were told what they believed before they were old enough to decide for themselves. I believe this leads to the aforementioned ignorance of the finer points of their faith. What you accept as a child, becomes your reality and quickly moves beyond questioning. This troubles me in that almost every denomination either encourages our requires raising children to accept their faith as fact. If it is empirical fact, why question? Why learn? You are saved, move on.
I am not sure what evidences you’re referring to in terms of biblical accuracy. Most errors I am thinking of don’t warrant quotes, they are hard science/history:
– No great deluge (no evidence for it, not enough water on entire earth – above or below
to precipitate it)
– Earth’s age being many times older than bible presumes
– Complete Impossibility of single family (Noah’s) leading to population of 6 billion or so
in span of a few thousand years (especially when you consider effects of black death)
– Man not living during time of dinosaurs
– Miracles said to have occurred at moment of Christ’s death not recorded by a single
outside source or historian in the region
– Authorship of bible (OT written by many sources much later than first thought, NT
written later as well – none of the NT books written by actual apostles
– Fact the contents of NT decided by committee of mortal men more akin to politicians
than what we think of as priests
– Contradictions of every sort throughout the bible (start with two creation stories for
example)
Just to name a few. These are the most well-accepted ones I can think of, with many accepted by most modern Christian biblical scholars as well as the Catholic church.
I am not sure what you mean about cell structure exactly. Are you referring to irreducibility? The “watch-maker” analogy? And why does “creator” mean “God of the bible” anyway?
Sorry to take so long responding. I look forward to yours.