Building a Defense (part 2)

Introduction

For many decades, atheism was a belief privately held but only proclaimed by eccentrics who liked the attention.

In the early 2000s, a wave of books rose to the top of best seller lists and three in particular gained wide-spread popularity.

These authors, along with an American academic named Daniel Dennett became known as the Four Horsemen of the “New Atheism.”

The “New Atheism” was not new in its arguments but in its aggressive approach and popular appeal.

I want to take these three books in turn and show what we are dealing with.

In some instances we will see some challenges that we need to deal with in defending our faith but in others I want to show how very thin these arguments are.

This is hopeful provided we do not answer by making an equally thin case in return.

We begin with Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

Mean Christians

Mr. Harris opens with an assault on Christians who don’t act like Christians.

“The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism.”

This speaks to the great need for us to be lights and speaks as seasoned with salt. To fail to do so, misrepresents our King.

But this is not the first time “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of” those who claim to be his (Rom. 2:24).

But Mr. Harris tips his hand by telling us that his charge is not hypocrisy, but rather consistency with scripture.

This causes us to ask what sort of disagreement he considers deeply and murderously intolerant.

Did he receive letters calling him “deranged” for instance. That is the word he employs most often to describe anyone who believes in any deity. I wonder if, at least in some cases, Mr. Harris is not the one who is intolerant of criticism.

But why should they not write nasty letters? I know why. But what is Mr. Harris’ reason?

Different Sort of Disagreement

Mr. Harris starts his first chapter with the argument, “that if one of us is right, the other is wrong. The Bible is either the word of God or it isn’t. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation, or he does not.”

So far so good.

Then he tries to suggest that our disagreement with him is the same as our disagreement with our Muslim or Mormon neighbor.

He says, when it comes to Mohommed or Joseph Smith, we are atheists too.

So we ALL don’t believe in some god.

But saying that we believe in different gods is not the same as one saying there is no God.

If we went down to our property and we saw the framework of a house that is sitting there and one of us said that Miguel’s crew did that and the other said that no, I think Tommy’s crew did that. I might say, I’ve never heard of Tommy’s crew and then perhaps an argument might ensue about who actually framed the house. But suppose someone comes up and says, I believe no one did it. I think it just happened. That will be a very different sort of conversation.

This is a peculiar thing when we come to scripture. We find that there are no arguments to atheists. Paul’s arguments are to people who believe in too many gods, not too few. The intellectuals then thought that one God was not enough to explain the universe. Today’s intellectuals believe one is too many. The old idea had more merit.

Opening the Door

The next argument is that the Bible says all sorts of awful things.

He is a real challenge for many modernized Christians.

These run from the rather benign (at least to many ears) (Prov. 13:24), to the more culturally offensive (Prov. 20:30).

He cites the “extreme” list of capital offenses (Ex. 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 13:6).

Then, later, he goes for the jugular (Deut. 22:13-21).

He points out that far from shying away from these “ethical concerns” Jesus is not the slightest bit embarrassed by these laws (Mark 7:10).

The charge lands and sticks in too many cases.

But before we get there let us consider the charge against the Old Testament:

It amounts to a criticism that they punished crimes with execution, exile, fines, flogging, and slavery.

We still practice all of these except slavery.

If you flinch when you read what God has said on a subject, they will see and they will call you on it.

If at any place you substitute modern notions over these old teachings, your modern preferences in place of ancient guidance, you will have given away the store. For then, you, like the atheist, are really just living on the premise of your own preferences.

You may not think it matters what a person thinks about Old Testament laws concerning slavery, but Christians apologizing for those and other laws have left the door standing wide open for thieves to come in and ransack their hearts and those of their children.

Fault Finder Finds Faults

Fulfilled prophecies would have been easy to manufacture.

Only if the fulfillments were written far away and with fuzzy details.

Not if they are written during the lives of the witnesses and with considerable detail (Acts 26:26).

Virgin or young woman (Isa. 7:14)?

The ratio of a circle is… (1 Kgs. 7:23).

Honesty vs. Faith

Mr. Harris says that, “the core of science is not controlled experiment or mathematical modeling; it is intellectual honesty.”

“It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn’t. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.”

“Everyone recognizes that to rely upon ‘faith’ to decide specific questions of historical fact is ridiculous.”

But the reports we read in scripture about the resurrection of Jesus aren’t “taken on faith” as he puts it. Rather, they are reports of eye-witness testimony. They are evidence presented that honesty demands we make an honest appraisal of. Mr. Harris’ honest appraisal amounts to this. He doesn’t believe in a universe where miracles can happen. He has never seen one and so there. He has also never seen the military conquests of Alexander the Great which have never been equalled. But he believes in them even though the reports we have concerning them are FAR more removed from the actual events than anything we read of in the New Testament. The issue is that Mr. Harris has believes miracles don’t exist. And because of this belief, he refuses to even consider evidence to the contrary. He pretends that scientists always keep an open mind and the proceeds to communicate how firmly closed his is.

Conversely, we are asked to count the cost (Lk. 14:28-32).

Conclusion

As I read through this book, I find no convincing arguments against God. The only thing he is remotely convincing about is that people who claim God, act very badly sometimes.

I don’t think people are generally led away by these kinds of arguments. Especially when wrapped in such provocative vitriol.

Instead, I think people who are already headed out the door come to this and find comfort in the scorn for what they are already upset about.

This lesson doesn’t address those kinds of things (a later lesson).

But what I am trying to do is cut off a path by showing it is not what it promises to be. He does not have answers to his own questions much less ones he doesn’t even know to ask.

Perhaps you are here and have not called on the name of our Lord. Your belief does not affect His existence, but it will affect yours a great deal. Would you come while we stand and sing.