An Apologetic Dialogue
What follows is an e-mail discussion between me and Mike Williamson, a student at the University of Edinburgh. This dialogue was conducted and edited in fulfillment of a course requirement for my Apologetics class at RTS this past January. As for Mike, I stumbled upon his blog a couple years ago in an attempt to inform myself on the perspectives of a secular humanist. He is a self-proclaimed “agnostic atheist”, and he and I met after trading comments on our blogs.
Jason: I’d like to know what you think about the existence of God… if you flat out deny it, then why?
Mike: To answer the question fairly briefly, I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe that there is enough evidence to support the claim that there is a God. The burden of proof is firmly in the theist’s court as the one making the claim, just as someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens would have to provide evidence before I believed them.
I would not generally say that I flat out deny the existence of God because I would change my mind if confronted with good enough evidence. That makes me an agnostic atheist (just like every other atheist I’ve ever met). This means that I don’t believe there is a God, but I don’t claim to know for sure.
More specifically with the Christian God, I suppose I would deny outright the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God because of the problem of unnecessary suffering.
Jason: I’d like to challenge you on a couple points you made. First, you said that you don’t believe that there is enough evidence to support the claim that there is a God. I contend that you have come to that conclusion because you have already fixed in your mind that God doesn’t exist. Therefore, when presented with a piece of evidence regarding the existence of God, you will interpret that evidence through your atheist filter while I would interpret it through my Christian filter. On this, I’m afraid, we’re going to have a hard time finding common ground.
Take, for example, the cosmological argument, with which I’m sure you’re well familiar. When I examine the scientific findings regarding the expansion of the universe, it leads me to believe that the universe had a “first cause”. If it’s growing, it had to start from nothing. In my opinion, the only possible first cause is God. However, when you’re confronted with the same evidence, you might suggest that our universe is part of a greater “multiverse”, and the tools for creation rest in there. Of course, I would counter that claim by asking how the multiverse came to be. Your own “burden of proof” becomes a stumbling block there as well.
My question to you is, don’t you think that if I were to show you some compelling evidence for the existence of God, you would dismiss it with some sort of naturalist response? From my perspective, there’s an overwhelming abundance of evidence for God. His signature is all over the universe, at both the cosmic and the microscopic scales. Scripture says that unbelievers all know this to be true, and yet they suppress this truth (Romans 1:19-21). I don’t necessarily want to have a debate over the specifics of each of those “evidences”, particularly because of what I’ve said already. I think we should start simply by recognizing that we cannot bridge our gap by my providing any evidence and then go from there.
One more statement I’d like to make is that I’m a bit curious about your definitions of perspectives. You claim to be an “agnostic atheist”, but do you actually spend time investigating from a theist perspective? For example, do you go to church every so often, just to see if you might discover the truth one day? If you don’t believe you could ever discover the truth in a church (or a mosque, synagogue, temple), then could you really call yourself an agnostic?
Mike: Regarding evidence filters, you’re claiming that we’re both biased from opposite perspectives, correct? The difference is that I apply an equal standard of evidence to every claim depending on how extraordinary it is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do not believe any God claims, among many other types of claims, because they haven’t reached my standard of evidence. In contrast, you believe in one type of God but not another, even though there is no more evidence for one than the other, demonstrating that you apply a different standard of evidence to different claims.
I also have no reason to be biased against evidence for God. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a God looking out for us, or if heaven existed, or if I knew that everyone I knew who’s died isn’t gone and that I’ll see them again? There are many people who I could have much better relationships with if I believed in God; when I left the Church I left behind a lot of friends. It’s the same with other claims; wouldn’t it be great if homeopathy worked, for example? I remember the exact moment that I left Catholicism. I was standing before the grotto at Lourdes, crying my eyes out, and I turned to my priest and said “I think I’m losing my faith. I want to believe, but I don’t think I can.” I had an awful lot invested in my belief in God and I would happily go back to that if I was provided with enough evidence.
Specifically regarding the cosmological argument, and I know you don’t want to focus on specific pieces of evidence (although I don’t know where else this discussion could go), but I can’t just leave it unaddressed. You say that the only possible first cause is God, but that’s a specific type of argument from ignorance called the “God of the Gaps”. You can’t think of any other explanation, so you conclude that it must be God. That’s not how you construct an argument. You can only argue by eliminating other causes when you know all the possible causes. Instead of God, why not go with the much simpler explanation of the existence of a particle which exists outside of time as the cause of the Big Bang? Personally, I am perfectly happy to say that when it comes to the origin of the universe, I don’t know. The theist, on the other hand, replaces one mystery with another when he says “God did it”. It is a non-explanation, because it says nothing at all about how it happened. Furthermore, jumping the gun in that way and going with one explanation before enough evidence is in discourages the search for the real answer.
Regarding church, I have gone a few times but not because I thought it might change my mind. I want evidence, not preaching. I don’t really care all that much what the Bible or any other supposedly divine revelation says until I’m convinced that its authority is real. That doesn’t make me less of an agnostic. It’s not up to me to investigate every claim that’s ever been made, and those that haven’t, before I can call myself an agnostic. I do, however, frequently engage with theists, mainly Christians but not exclusively.
Jason: Again, because of our opposing worldviews, we are not going to get anywhere in our discussion by considering evidence presumably for or against the existence of God. I only referred to the cosmological argument to make the point that we aren’t likely to see eye to eye on the evidence. I could start by saying that your theoretical particle outside of time needs a cause, and you could say that God needs a cause, and we’d be back at square one. Also, I might ask how you define “equal standards”, “extraordinary claims”, and “standard of evidence”, specifically how you derive those definitions and upon what authority to you formulate such claims. You also say that you have no reason to be biased against evidence for God, but that’s exactly what you’re doing (though admittedly, I am equally as biased in opposition). As for your claim that there is no more evidence for the Christian God than any other God, I’d be happy to pick apart any other worldview than my own and explain how it falls short of logical explanation. For the purpose of this discussion, though, I’d prefer to stick to an analysis of your own worldview rather than some other one that you don’t hold to be true anyway. It could take a rather long time to refute every non-Christian worldview, and that would seem silly since you don’t believe them anyway.
Unfortunately, I doubt that either of us will be convinced based on the presumptions of the other. Rather, we need address our worldviews themselves, since they’re the basis of our interpretation of evidences. Ultimately, there is no neutral ground to which we can move to evaluate the scenario objectively. You see, because you deny the existence of God, you must examine evidence using only your own human rationality. This makes human reason your own highest authority, yet on what basis are you able to trust human reason? Given a natural, random cause for the existence of the universe (and subsequently beings with the ability to think and reason), why should human thought be trusted as authoritative? Aren’t our thoughts, then, just accidents caused by various neurons firing in a certain manner at a certain time?
The idea that we can know reason from irrationality, truth from untruth, right from wrong, and good from evil demonstrates that there are some sorts of laws and order to the universe. For the Christian, this is no problem, because we recognize the evidence that God has revealed to all humans in the form of natural revelation (the world) and special revelation (scripture). He has made it quite clear for us, and all of the evidence fits quite nicely. Without the Christian worldview, the ability to even consider evidence and assign value to it becomes rather difficult to explain. Other worldviews collapse under their own absurdity, often either self-refuting or borrowing from the Christian worldview. For example, how can one explain rationality itself without assuming that there is an ultimate standard for reason? How can there be an ultimate standard for reason if we are all here by accident? Furthermore, why should our reasoning be trusted? Where else but an absolute personal God can our ability to apply reliable reasoning to the world be attributed?
Mike: Ok, I disagree that I’m biased against the evidence, but I can accept that that kind of evidence is unlikely to come up in a debate like this, so let’s leave that behind.
By “standard of evidence” I am referring to the type, quality and quantity of evidence for a certain claim. An equal standard of evidence is one of a similar type, quality, and quantity to another, assuming that the claim is of a similar level of extraordinariness. By that, I mean that if you told me you went to the library this morning, I’d take your word for it, that would be enough evidence because it’s a completely ordinary claim (and also to a certain extent because it doesn’t matter one way or the other). If, however, you told me you saw a pink elephant fall from the sky, I’d have a hard time taking your word for it, because it’s considerably more extraordinary. It doesn’t get much more extraordinary than a God claim; we have no experience of it. Similar claims in the past have not subsequently been backed up by evidence (unlike the library claim, people say similar things all the time and it turns out they’re right), and also because it matters a great deal if God exists or not, particularly if I’m supposed to believe something on his authority. I don’t need authority on which to base this standard of evidence. It is, after all, what I find convincing for my own beliefs. Generally, it’s striking a balance between too high a standard of evidence, in which case you would be dismissing things that are true, and too low a standard, in which case you would believe in things that are mutually exclusive. But it’s more important to be consistent.
Let’s now discuss reason and truth. So, do you think that if there were no God there would be no such thing as a fact? The order of the universe in fact fits very well into the non-theist worldview; if everything is deterministic, then you would expect things to react in a similar way under similar conditions. Indeed, I’d expect a universe that works according to the whims of its creator not to act consistently, particularly if we’re talking about a God who is supposed to intervene. I’d also like to quickly point out that not much in the universe is random chance, depending on how you define that. Evolution certainly isn’t, so here we have an explanation for our faculties to determine fact from fiction. It usually benefits our survival to know what’s out there, how things work, etc. However, it is far from perfect; an easy example is an optical illusion or some other type of cognitive bias. Our brains have evolved to spot patterns, even when there isn’t one, because that’s beneficial to our survival, even if it is not beneficial in an attempt to know the truth. (On a quick aside, how does this imperfection fit into your worldview? If, as in your last sentence, you claim that our reliable faculties can only be attributed to an absolute personal God, how do you explain the fact that it isn’t perfect?)
This imperfection is exactly why we need logic and science, to iron out the imperfections, and to remove human influence as much as possible from the result, so that we are as close as possible to the truth. I am a little confused about your “ultimate standard of reason”. There are absolute truths, I either went to the shops yesterday or I didn’t. Chemicals either react in a certain way or they don’t. Reason (and science) is a human tool to determine truth from non-truth, nothing more. How can we rely on this? Because it gets results! Look around you, the computer you’re using right now is a product of science, designed using a reasonable application of evidence. No other system of thought has done anything even remotely comparable to just that one machine, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Are we just going to throw this process away and rely on faith, or some other system of thought?
So, what happens when the scripture doesn’t line up with the world? There are plenty of examples; God did not create the world exactly as it is, pi does not equal 3, killing birds and doing some ritual with its blood does not cure disease, there was no census in the year that Joseph supposedly had to return to Bethlehem. It doesn’t seem like there’s much consistency to this ordered worldview. And that’s just the factual stuff, there’s also a whole load of stuff in the Bible that differs with our ability to reason out morality.
Jason: First, I want to point out some evidence that clearly demonstrates my point about our worldviews and how our presuppositions affect our interpretation of everything. Statements like “it doesn’t get much more extraordinary than a God claim” are indicative of such a bias. Similarly, your whole paragraph about scripture not lining up with the world was developed with the presupposition that the Bible is not divinely inspired and therefore cannot be authoritative. Using terms like “factual stuff” is begging the question. Both of those presuppositions I reject, just as you reject mine. Since your worldview is defined by your presuppositions, I intend to show you that your worldview doesn’t work. You see, I can’t imagine an existence without God’s presence, and I don’t find there to be any inconsistencies in the bible. If you want to have a discussion about biblical authority, we can do that. I can explain to you how all of your “facts” are based on false presuppositions.
Quickly, I’d like to give you an answer to your “aside” question before we move on to your worldview, only because it’s relevant to the worldview topic. An imperfect mind is not at all a problem for a Christian, simply because God didn’t create other gods, he created creatures (humans). Everything in creation is subordinate to him. Just because God has perfect faculties doesn’t necessitate that humans have perfect faculties.
Now, let’s discuss that worldview of yours. Here’s the statement upon which your worldview collapses: “…to remove human influence as much as possible from the result, so that we are as close as possible to the truth”. You see, you must use your human faculties to determine this truth from untruth. However, if you suggest that human influence is to be removed so that we may approach absolute truth, then why not discredit your own human reason? You seem to recognize that the human mind is fallible and not to be trusted, and yet in contradiction you seem to think that the human mind is able to establish absolute standards upon which we may rely. To your question, we need not throw away logic, reason, or science precisely because God has given us these tools as a way for us to know about him and the world he created. Our faith simply allows us to understand the source of these tools.
So, is human reason to be trusted or not? If so, then how do you know that my human reason isn’t more accurate than yours; and how are we to judge when we disagree? If human reason is not to be trusted, then by what standard are we able to discover absolute truth? Can some impersonal source like evolution or pantheism tell us anything about what to believe? You see, evolution doesn’t care about beliefs or truth, only on behaviors and results. Can’t you conceive of a person that is wrong about a great many things in the world and yet is still able to survive and to reproduce? False beliefs can lead to survival equally as well as true beliefs. Natural selection cares only about living and multiplying, not about truth, rationality, logic, morality, or anything of the sort. I suggest that the very existence of truth, rationality, logic, and morality necessitate a personal absolute (God).
Mike: Wait a minute; it was you who said that God has revealed himself through the world and through scripture. I mentioned a few examples where the two don’t line up, which poses a problem if they’re both revelations from God. There was no presupposition involved on my part (unless you’re claiming that the Bible doesn’t claim those things, or that bird-blood rituals do cure disease, or that the Bible has more authority than our observation of the world), I was just pointing out an inconsistency in your viewpoint. By “factual stuff” I meant things that the Bible claims are facts, as opposed to something it says is good, I’m not presuming that something is a fact.
You’re posing a false dichotomy when you ask “is human reason to be trusted or not?” As I think I explained clearly in my last response, human faculties are generally to be trusted for evolutionary reasons, but only to a certain extent, which is why we need to use science and reason to remove cognitive bias, or when dealing with things our brains have not evolved to deal with. For those kinds of truths, we must rely on evidence; and not necessarily just one kind of evidence, we can use various forms of evidence which should corroborate the truth, or at least come closer to it than we would arrive with just human faculties. Indeed, there are lots of examples of “evidence” for the existence of God that, when subjected to scrutiny, turn out to be nothing more than cognitive bias (things like the power of prayer, speaking in tongues, feeling his presence). I think it is beyond denial that having evidence for a claim is a better reason for believing it than not having evidence for it. Sometimes, however, it is cumbersome and unnecessary. That is not an inconsistent position.
You said “we need not throw away logic, reason, or science precisely because God has given us these tools as a way for us to know about him and the world he created. Our faith simply allows us to understand the source of these tools.” As far as I can tell this is a bold assertion without any evidence to back it up. How do you know that God gave us these tools? History shows us that science and logic were invented by humans and perfected by humans over the last few millennia. God doesn’t seem to have had much to do with it at all; indeed, science is largely contrary to faith. Faith brought us witch hunting and blood-letting, it doesn’t seem to be all that reliable. Science, on the other hand, gets results.
Jason: Speaking of the bible, again, you demonstrate that your worldview is dominating your thinking. Every one of the things you mentioned has a reasonable explanation. The ritual in Leviticus 14 was for the cleansing of a leper so as to reestablish them into the covenant community. The ritual itself cured nothing, and was more of a symbolic representation of God’s work in caring for His people. As for the verses in 1 Kings 7, notice that all of the measurements are in whole numbers. You don’t see any fractions at all in these measurements, let alone an exact decimal like pi. The numbers the verses give us were the closest we could get without using fractions. Finally, we have the census of Quirinius. Certainly, there is much controversy about this passage. Several opinions exist on the significance of Luke 2:1-2. I can only give you my opinion, and I know for a fact that you are unable to prove me wrong. My opinion is that Jesus was born in or around 6 B.C and that a year or two before, there was in fact a census decreed. Clearly, Luke saw two distinct censuses (see Luke 2:1-2 and compare to Acts 5:37). Secular history (which I don’t feel compelled to trust, though in this case I have no reason not to) tells us that Quirinius wasn’t “governor” when Jesus was born, but in the original language (Greek), the word can also refer to a ruler or leader. Quirinius was in fact a military leader in Syria at the time, and could have easily executed a census on behalf of the emperor. Numerous other opinions exist, although I’m most settled on this one. Again, despite the efforts of many in the past several hundred years, I find there to be no inconsistencies in the bible, and the bible aligns perfectly well with the revealed world.
Given more time and flexibility with the length of this paper, I would have likely continued this discussion by shifting the focus of the discussion away from evolution toward the Christianity and the Bible. Before long, I expect we’d be engaged on the problem of evil and unnecessary suffering, especially since Mike included that issue in his initial response to my inquiry. It was clear from his responses that Mike requires evidence for the proof of God’s existence, though I’m convinced that he will never be persuaded by an evidential apologetic. That is precisely why I persisted with the transcendental argument, even though it seemed to be a futile cause. Ultimately, Mike put up a good front, and only by God’s grace through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will he be convinced that Christianity is true.
The topic for my class was “Apologetics”, which may be defined as a reasoned defense of the faith. The apostle Peter made a case for apologetics when he said to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect” (
Loading ...