TLR Looks Back At 2022 Reader Comments (Part 4) Tribute To All Atheist Readers

Welcome to part four of a look back at reader’s comments. I dedicate this article to all the atheist and non-religious readers of this blog. Most are excellent dialogue partners. As I stated before, atheist who honestly and sincerely pursue truth are closer to heaven than theists who care less about truth.

This article takes the same form as the other three.

Are Atheists Closer To Heaven Than Christians Who Could Not Care Less?

Comment:

I’m not sure if it’s always the case that those who pursue a subject are more apt to change their minds on it than those who are apathetic to it. When talking about the chances an ardent atheist versus a lukewarm Christian becomes a hot Christian, I would think it depends on the type of conversion. If the conversion is more logical/cerebral then I’d say the atheist has a better chance of changing their mind, since an ardent atheist is more likely to pursue things like writings of Church fathers than a lukewarm Christian would.

But how often does this change an attitude towards hot Christianity come from study as opposed to personal experiences? I can’t say with any certainty, but if shows like The Journey Home are any indication there are more than a few Road to Demascus type moments out there. A lukewarm Christian is less apt to think “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as some ardent atheists would.

TLR Response:

My focus is the person’s attitude towards things beyond themselves. Where we spend our energy is indicative of where hearts are. If a person does not care, no argument or appeal will move them.

Follow Up:

Furthermore, when I think of atheists who truly desire to know the truth, I think of one who engage in honest and respectful dialogue, not those who seek to earn cheap points. Gladly, most atheists I engage on Patheos fall in the former category. Again, thank you to all the atheists who engaged in dialogue with me this year on Pathoes. Let’s do it again next year!

The Appeal of Atheism

Comment:

Interesting post. I ran across it while skimming the comments of one of the people who commented here.

I should begin by making a quick note on what atheism is. Or perhaps, on what it is not.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is not a worldview. It is a position on the question of whether god(s) exists. Specifically, it is the position that god(s) do not exist.

(Note that the majority of identifying atheists online disagree somewhat with this, and rather find that atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).)

What this means is that atheism has very little content, compared with for instance Christianity. There is no specific view on morality attached atheism – for instance an atheism might hold to moral realism, or not. An atheist might even be religious, given that there are religions with god(s), such as some forms of Buddhism.

Keeping this in mind, if we look at your list of things atheists find appealing about atheism, I don’t think any of those items necessarily flows from atheism.

Your list of appealing things with atheism doesn’t look to me like things to do with atheism. Instead, they look like a reframing or rephrasing of what someone might find unappealing with Christianity.

Personally, my atheism isn’t a big part of my daily life. I live in a highly non-religious society, and mostly, religion is just not something that is a part of my life, or the life of most of my social circles.

TLR Response:

Thank you. I used appeal in two difference ways in the article. I used it as a request for information (an appeal) and as attraction (what is appealing). Furthermore, I disagree that atheism is not a worldview. I may address this later. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Follow Up:

This article received a ton of comments from atheists. I encourage anyone interested to go and look. I had a tough time deciding on the best comment to use. If you wish to repost yours for further discussion, please do so. Thanks!

Answers for Atheists Part 1: Reason and Consistency

Comment:

Reiterating a point from a more extended comment I just left (currently awaiting moderation) at your previous post on this topic: your question about “appeal” seems to be about why they find atheism “good”. Have you considered the possibility that atheists’ foremost concern tends to be about “true”, such that any system that relies on propositions “false” rather than “true” therefore tends to be considered qualitatively less “good” than a system that is “true”?

To give an extreme example not intended as insult to any religion: the Harry Potter books are fiction. While it may have moral lessons that may be taken from its narrative, a belief system that is founded on the fiction of some people having the ability to do “magic” by waving sticks and chanting Latinate gibberish will fail to appeal to those who place paramount value on things that are “true”.

I would also suggest a metaphor for consideration. On cable TV the Food Network has a program called “Chopped”, where an initial quartet of chefs are presented with a series of “mystery baskets” of three to five ingredients to use in preparing culinary dishes in a nerve-rackingly short time, with their cuisine then judged competitively. Obviously, the judges find some dishes more appealing than others. It is rare but possible for a contestant even to last a round while omitting one (or even two) of the “mandatory” ingredients, if someone else’s dish manages to be monumentally terrible.

Of course working in a tearing hurry in a kitchen with fire, boiling oil, and sharp knives means risks of accident even for professionals; there have been several over the show’s several hundred episodes. These points leads to the one way certain to lose a round, even against a dish with missing “mandatory” ingredients: including human blood. It does not matter how otherwise fine the dish may be; every time a chef who has a cut has dropped human blood on the plate, the judges have always considered anything else presented and lacking that flaw more appealing. I thus suggest the analogy that it seems not so much that atheists find whatever sort of atheism appealing per se, but that like the inclusion of human blood in a dish on Chopped they consider any inclusion of falsehood fundamentally and unavoidably unappealing.

The “there is no God” proposition of atheism tends appealing to this sort of atheist because it does not include beliefs that the atheist considers false. Other factors then direct what sort (of around two dozen school/type combinations) of atheism the atheist finds most appealing.

TLR Response:

Well, I understand what atheist consider false. My concern is why? I have been instructed that no god has ever appeared to an atheist to give proof for its existence. Such an event, they say, would convince them of the god’s existence. I remain skeptical of this. If atheism is your presupposition and gods (or God) cannot exist, no evidence presented to show this will be convincing. Another “natural” explanation sought. Now, if an atheist could provide me with an alternate explanation for the existence of reality/universe without resorted to an appeal to the “question mark,” I would be open to considering it. First, please explain why anything exists. Thanks!

Follow Up:

Again, this articled received a ton of comments! I chose the first comment due to its overall content. Please click on the link and see the discussion that followed.

Answers for Atheists Part 2: Objective Truth and No Evidence for God

I think we should talk a bit about answers and explanations.

The personality of us humans can be quite diverse. One way in which we vary is to what extent we have a need for closure, i.e. a need to have answers and avoid ambiguity.

It’s worth noting here that religiosity is positively correlated with such a need for closure.

What does this mean? Well, it means that as a general trend, the more religious you are, the more you feel a need to have answers to questions, and saying “God” or “God’s will” in response to questions will meet this need.

But what kind of answer or explanation is it really to say “God” in response to a question of, say, why there is something instead of nothing?

Suppose I want to explain why my electricity went out. It turns out that,

The wires that brings electricity to my house was broken.

The wires were broken because a tree fell over the wire.

The tree fell down because a) it was really windy, and b) the integrity of the tree had been compromised due to rot.

…and so on. We can break down the event (electricity being gone), and have detailed and concrete descriptions of the situation that preceded the lack of electricity. The situation appeals to well-known and established phenomena (trees, wind, etc.), using mechanisms that we know of from before.

Of a more cosmological nature, we can appeal to gravity, nuclear reactions, and so on, to explain the structure and composition of our solar system from a previous state. The mechanisms and processes can be detailed and outlined.

Now, what about using “God” as an explanation for, say, anything? There is no description of the mechanisms – saying “God’s will” or some such is just an empty term, bereft of content.

God is not an explanation; it seems to me. It is merely a placeholder, serving to avoid the appearance of ambiguity. In short, it seems like waving one’s hand and saying “magic”.

Am I wrong? Does “God” explain things using established mechanisms, with detailed steps leading up to an event?

TLR Response:

I agree that mechanisms are needed. No theist would disagree that the universe is set up to work per natural laws. The problem comes when discussing where the universe comes from and why we have those natural laws to begin with. With God, there are attributes that theist use that are not “place holds” and “magic,” like eternal, infinite, and all powerful. It is not irrational to believe that such a being’s existence is possible.

Follow Up:

Furthermore, without x, nothing exists. This x, theists call God. I content that atheists (not agnostics) have no account for x and therefore no account for the existence of the universe. No atheist has yet adequately answered why there is something instead of nothing. Care to give it a try?