""/
Christian Faith, Dialogue

Please stop saying “Faith is belief without evidence”

Is Atheism a belief?

Last week, my post, entitled “Please stop saying ‘Atheism is not a belief’” generated a lot of discussion on various online discussion groups. A number of atheists took issue with me telling them what they believe and (sometimes kindly) suggested that I stop saying that.

Fair enough. If you, the atheist, really do not have beliefs about God (broadly construed as the greatest conceivable being with all perfection who exists outside of and has created the universe) and his existence, then so be it. I wasn’t trying to shift the burden of proof or otherwise trick anyone. I really just think a dialogue where both sides lay out the case for their respective views is far more fruitful.

Also, I honestly think there is evidence for atheism (as a belief). Those evidences are at least:

  • the problem of evil
  • the problem of divine hiddenness
  • the specific ways in which the atheist thinks the many theistic arguments fail

Again, I of course don’t find this case persuasive. I think there are good responses to the problem of evil and divine hiddenness, and I think there are many theistic arguments that are sound. But really intelligent (professional philosopher) atheists disagree. They, with reason, believe that God does not exist.

And this seems to me to be a stronger position than merely lacking belief. That is, it is stronger to say, on the basis of evidence, there is (or is likely) no God. It seems weaker to say the theist hasn’t YET made her case and therefore we lack theistic belief.

After all, don’t you, the atheist, think the argument from evil is a good argument? Here’s one version of that argument:

  1. If an all powerful, all good God exists, then there is no pointless evil.
  2. There is pointless evil.
  3. Therefore, there is no God.

Be careful what you say here because the conclusion is that there is no God. If you say it is a good argument, then this is to say that the premises rationally support the conclusion/claim that there is no God. That’s going to suggest you affirm the conclusion (which makes it a belief). But if you merely lack a belief, then what do you say about this argument?

Let’s make a deal

But okay, if it is just a lack of belief, so be it. I think it would make for a better dialogue for us both to present evidence for our views. If you don’t think so, okay. But let’s make a deal. If you would like for theists to stop saying atheism is a belief, then please stop saying faith is belief without evidence.

In the discussion boards last week, many atheists got very upset that I would define for them what atheism is, but felt perfectly free (sometimes in the same post) to say Christian faith is belief without evidence.

Have you ever noticed there is not one Christian who has defined faith that way? Doesn’t it strike you as a little strange that you are building a case against Christianity using your own definitions of faith rather than what the scholars of the faith say. Shouldn’t that suggest that perhaps you are building a wee bit of a straw man?

Now I’m perfectly willing to grant that Christians have talked about faith this way before. We have A LOT of work to do in the Christian community. But this is using what lay people say in order to critique Christianity as a whole.  Wouldn’t it be more charitable and rational to critique the claims of its scholars?

Faith as an act of trust

On most views, faith is seen as an act of trust. It is not, in this sense, a belief at all. Evidence then is very important to faith since it guides us to those things that are trustworthy. I like to use the example of an airplane. None of us really know how an airplane works. Now we might know a thing or two about flight, but most of us really don’t know how an airplane can cruise 6 miles off the ground. But we know enough about the reliability of an airplane and flight as a mode of travel to entrust ourselves to it. We have good evidence from statistics to testimony to past experiences, etc., to get on board and literally place our faith in the airplane.

Likewise, (rational) Christians have considered the evidence, find the case for Christianity persuasive, and have, consequently, entrusted themselves to the Christian way of life. That’s Christian faith. There are plenty of things we don’t know about how all this works (just like the airplane), but we trust on the basis of evidence. We have faith. We have given our lives to the truth of Christianity. (I say more about this here)

As a side note, when you define faith as belief without evidence this also shuts down dialogue. The reason for this is, first, because this just isn’t true for most Christians. Second, if you think faith is belief without evidence, then the debate is over. Evidence has been defined out of the discussion and so we are no longer discussing the rationality of our respective positions. Mine has defined as a position of belief without evidence.

So we do we have a deal? I won’t say you believe that God does not exist and you don’t say faith is belief without evidence.

""/
Apologetics, Dialogue

Please stop saying “Atheism is not a belief”

A lack of belief

It’s become excruciatingly predictable for atheists who operate on a pop level to clarify that atheism, for them, is not a belief. It is, as they say, a lack of belief. They will point out that there is a difference between saying “I believe there is no God” (which is a belief) and saying “I do not believe there is a God” (which is a mere lack of belief). Many atheists will say they only lack a belief and this defines their atheism.

Now I’m not sure where this came from, but the talking point memo has spread far and wide.

Why does the atheist claim atheism is the mere lack of belief? The reason for this is that atheists don’t think they need to justify their atheism. Beliefs are the sorts of things that need to be justified by reason and evidence. If atheism isn’t a belief, then they need not shoulder any burden of proof for their atheism. So the theist is stuck having to meet some (usually extraordinarily high) burden of proof while the atheist gets to sit back and poke holes in whatever the theist says. It’s really quite brilliant as a rhetorical dodge.

They will often say that most of us are a-Santa-Clausists or a-tooth-fairyists, but it is not like we’ve justified these beliefs. There simply is no evidence for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and so we lack these beliefs.

A plea

If I may, may I talk with you, the atheist, for a minute. Please stop saying this! Let me give you a couple of reasons why.

For one, it shuts down rather than fosters dialogue. It is way easier to shoot holes in a view than it is to defend a view. If you are engaged in a formal debate (especially if there’s prize money involved!), then it makes sense to put yourself in the best possible position to win the debate. However, if you and I are dialogue partners, both attempting to know truth about these matters, then it seems infinitely better for both of us to lay out a case for our respective views and then we can, you know, talk about the case for both positions.

Second, I suspect you do have beliefs about God’s existence.

To see this, let’s first say what a belief is. A belief is simply the affirmation of a proposition or claim. Belief states always have a propositional content picked out by a “that clause.” A belief is always in the form of “I believe that p.” I believe that grass, when living, is green. Or I believe that Coke is better than Pepsi. Or I believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Or I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. The contents of these beliefs are the following propositions:

  • grass, when living, is green
  • Coke is better than Pepsi
  • the Tooth Fairy does not exist
  • Jesus rose from the dead

Notice that one can wonder about or consider the truth of these propositions/claims without affirming that they are true. But once one comes to assent or affirm a proposition’s truth, then it is a belief.

Beliefs do not have to be held with 100% certainty. I believe that my car is in the parking lot outside of my office building. I affirm this proposition, but I am quite aware I could be wrong about this. The car could have been stolen or towed or my wife could have picked it up, and my belief would be false. I don’t have anything close to 100% certainty, but it would be absurd to say that I don’t thereby believe it.

Beliefs held with less than 100% certainty also do not require faith. I get it, you do not want to have anything that smacks of faith. Rest assured, one can intellectually assent to something (i.e., believe it) without placing one’s faith in that thing. Indeed I can believe that airplanes are a safe mode of travel without ever getting aboard.

So a belief is simply the assent to a claim/proposition.

Don’t you, the atheist, think that it is true that there is no God (even if you are not 100% certain about this)? You’ve reflected on this claim, you’ve considered the evidence for and against. Haven’t you concluded that there is no God?

Not identical states

Now it’s true that believing something is not the case and lacking a belief about something are not identical states. It is logically possible for one to say it is true “I do not believe p” but it is false that “I believe that not p.” But when is this the case? This only seems to be the case when we haven’t sufficiently reflected on some issue. There are a lot of historical controversies about which I don’t have beliefs simply because I don’t know enough about them (e.g., who was involved with the JFK assassination).

But this doesn’t seem to be where most atheists are at. They seem to have made up their mind that there is no God. I mean I could be wrong, but their tone (especially in internet groups) suggests that they have some very strong beliefs about the existence of God and it is not just a lack of belief that they spend so much time going on about.

I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I also believe that there is no Tooth Fairy. Do I have justification for this belief? Of course I do! My kids have lost about 40 teeth thus far and I’ve got good reason to think there is no one (but me!) that’s providing candy in exchange for a tooth.

The irony of this dodge is twofold. For one, the atheist begs off of having to provide justification for his or her atheism while simultaneously acting as if theirs is the position of reason and evidence. If the atheist is all about reason and evidence, then he or she shouldn’t be reticent to provide reason and evidence for his or her atheism.

Second, there is indeed reason and evidence for atheism. I’m happy to admit that! Now I obviously don’t think the case for atheism is, all things considered, persuasive. However, there are some objections to theism that I think have some punch and there are plenty of very intelligent atheists who think these justify their atheism. So why not just lay out the case for atheism and let’s have a dialogue?

A way forward

Even if you, the atheist, are not convinced, I think I have a way forward. Maybe you merely lack a belief in God. I don’t think so, but okay. What about the likelihood of there being a God? Do you think that it’s likely the case that God does not exists? Or do you just lack this belief too? It seems odd indeed for to say that one lacks a belief about the likelihood of there being a God.

I suspect that you do believe that God likely does not exist. If so, it seems we could then have a productive conversation. Let me lay out why I think there is good evidence to believe that God exists and you can lay out reasons and justification for why you believe this is likely false. Before you know it, we may just have a dialogue!

[for more info on this issue see Beliefmap’s post on this issue]

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Doubt

Richard Swinburne and the inevitability of doubt

Not long ago, Richard Swinburne was asked whether he ever doubts the truthfulness of Christianity. Who is Richard Swinburne? Swinburne, by most accounts, is THE top philosopher of religion in the world and much of his work centers on defending Christian theism. Virtually all of his writing is scholarly, but his contribution to the discussion is inestimable and will be read for centuries to come. So when the top academic defender of Christianity is asked about his doubts, it is worth tuning in.

Probability of truth

The first point he makes is the case for Christianity is one of probability and not certainty. This is important. The case, if successful, makes Christianity likely true, but doesn’t guarantee or entail that it’s true. By being merely probable, he doesn’t mean that he only sort of believes it. I take it that he fully and confidently believes Christianity is true, but he thinks the evidence gives one good reason (i.e., makes one rational) to believe but falls short of an absolute guarantee. A claim can have a 99% percent chance of being right, but even this still falls short of certainty.

Falling short of absolute certainty is not unusual given that ALL our empirical beliefs are merely probable without an absolute guarantee. Swinburne uses the example of a rocket ship. As the statistics will bear out, the science behind launching projectiles and people into space always has a chance at being wrong. But so do our more mundane beliefs. We believe that our car is right now parked in the parking lot in the usual spot. This is typically a very rational belief in that we don’t often get it wrong. However, this is clearly a probability as the car could have been stolen, towed, picked up by your family member, spontaneously blown up or you just forgot you parked it at the street.

Looking for doubts

If the case for Christianity is a probability, then “inevitably one has doubts.” And, Swinburne says, “in fact, I look for them.”

[share-quote author=”Richard Swinburne” via=”travdickinson”] Certainly I have doubts, and I look for them. [/share-quote]

This is a good word. Swinburne seems to think this is a thing for professionals but I think we should all search out and explore our doubts. I’m lucky enough to do this for a living. But if one thinks Christianity is true, then this seems to be the exact right posture. We should look for our doubts and see how well our view holds up in light of the doubts. If it doesn’t hold up, then we should change our minds. Sound scary? If it is true, we’ve got nothing to worry about.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that if we have some unanswered questions, we should reject the faith. I’m not saying if we have 99 good reasons to believe and 1 reason falls short, we should reject the faith. I’m simply saying that we honestly consider the evidence. This is normal for any belief we have. I myself found the evidence to be compelling. And so has the world’s preeminent philosopher of religion. That, it seems, should count for something.

""/
Christian Faith, Dialogue

Eugene Peterson and the difficulty of message

Two days ago, an article was published declaring Eugene Peterson had come to affirm same-sex issues and marriage. Then there was the blow up. Eugene Peterson is an iconic luminary type of figure for many Christians and this affirmation was either a big problem or a reason for celebration depending, of course, where one stood on these issues. Then comes a retraction by Peterson who said he was put on the spot and, in his words, “I haven’t had a lot of experience with [navigating same-sex relationships issues].”

But his retraction leaves many questions unanswered. In the original interview, when asked whether he would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, he answered with a one word “yes.” He’s retracted this and said:

When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.

But why did he say “yes” in the first place? It’s a bit hard to believe that, as thoughtful a guy as Eugene Peterson is, he doesn’t have worked out views on this. Again, he’s a hero of pastoral ministry and the issue of whether pastors should perform same-sex weddings has been a central issue in pastoral ministry for at least a decade or more. Has he not had young pastors who have come to him for wisdom and insight on this question?

He was also very positive about the fact that the church he pastored was accepting of a music minister who was gay and said, seemingly referring to being gay, “it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.” So far as I know, Peterson has not addressed or clarified these things in his retraction.

So there are a lot of questions here. And what he has said publically is, at least, a bit confusing. And I’m of course going to let Peterson speak for himself.

This does, however, highlight a difficulty of message. My sense reading less than 1000 words of Eugene Peterson’s thoughts about same-sex issues is that he is clearly affirming of the person with same-sex attraction. Peterson says “they’d be welcome at my table, along with everyone else.” And, as he’s now made clear, he affirms biblical teaching on marriage and sexual ethics.[1]

I imagine this is where a lot of us are at. We have friends and family members who are same-sex attracted and we think, as people, they should be able to pursue Jesus too. And yet we hold to biblical views about these things and think the practice of homosexual relationships is morally wrong.

But it is VERY difficult to articulate this without either sounding affirming of homosexual practice or coming across as rejecting the person who is same-sex attracted. It doesn’t help that both sides seem ready to pounce depending on which side we lean. My sense is that Peterson was trying to emphasize that he accepts and would love a person who is same-sex attracted (even to the extent of momentarily being willing to perform a same-sex wedding), but it came across as he was affirming of same-sex marriage and sexual ethics.

This, it seems, is especially difficult for a church in their messaging. As a church, we want to say that everyone is accepted. “Come as you are” is a familiar refrain. But does that make a church an LGBT accepting church? If a church is “LGBT accepting” does that mean they accept same-sex attracted people who can pursue Jesus and biblical holiness (I hope so) or does that mean that the homosexual practice is morally acceptable (I hope not)?

It is difficult to message but I think it’s not impossible. I think we can and have to maintain both the acceptance and love of the person who is same-sex attracted and our convictions about biblical teaching on homosexual practice.

We need to make clear that all people, no matter what they have done or what sorts of things they deal with, are accepted as people. All people should be welcome at your table (and your church) too. We can be friends and remain family members with people whose lifestyles are contrary to biblical teaching. It may limit the relationship some, but it shouldn’t, in principle, disqualify it. Many of us can and do have friends and family members who sleep around, or who, from time to time, take recreational drugs, or who don’t parent well, or who engage in legal but immoral business practices. Just to be clear, I’m not referring to womanizers, drug addicts, child abusers, or the mob. I’m just saying there are likely people who have “attractions” to practices that are out of step with Scripture and those are not typically grounds to disassociate. And these things are certainly not attractions that put them out of the reach of the gospel. Same goes with same-sex attraction issues.

But we also have to make clear that Scripture teaches a particular way of living one’s life. There are some things (a lot of things, in fact!) that are generally accepted, but are morally prohibited by Scripture. There’s of course room for lots of discussion. It’s not always obvious how to apply the claims of Scripture with the thorny issues of politics, economics, business, and morality. By and large, it seems to me that Scripture is clear on sexual ethics. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament epistles seemed to see how crucially important it was to live sexually pure lives and in God intended ways. It’s, by definition, an intimate issue and one that can have effect on the rest of our lives. In a word, the biblical view is that sex is intended for marriage and marriage is in its very essence is a man/woman union.

There are many things in the Christian way of life that is difficult. I have an exceedingly difficult time loving and serving my wife as Jesus loved and served the church (Eph. 5:25). I also rarely succeed as loving my neighbor as myself (Matt. 22:39). Likewise, the sexual ethic is not easy. I imagine those who take themselves to be polyamorous (non-monogamous) will find it burdensome. It is difficult for almost everyone in the post-adolescent years. And it is going to be a hard word for those who are same-sex attracted. Virtue is not easy and we shouldn’t expect it to be. But I remain convinced living a life according to biblical teaching is the way of human flourishing.

So I don’t know what Peterson has in mind on these issues. I have a very deep respect for the man. He’s a really thoughtful guy and suspect what comes next will be good and we’ll be led to love others better in light of the way of Jesus. Perhaps the author of The Message will lead us towards how to message loving acceptance with biblical conviction.

Related post:

Bono and Eugene: Learning to Cuss without Cussing

[1] I won’t argue for this here, but a wide majority of Bible scholars see the Bible as clearly prohibiting any same-sex sexual relationship, which precludes affirmation of same-sex marriage.

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith

The Gospel is the Biggest Idea I Know: True Myth

Many unbelievers have claimed that the gospel, as an idea, is ridiculous. And I kind of agree.

It’s a REALLY big idea. In fact, it’s the biggest idea I know.

The Christian version of mere theism alone is a big idea. The idea is there is a transcendent God who is the greatest conceivable being who has all perfections. This God stands outside of the universe, having created the universe, but also literally holds all contingent reality into being at all moments of their existence.

That’s a big idea! We all have to stare at that for a little as it’s both a mouthful and it is at the edge of what we can comprehend. And we don’t really comprehend it, at least not in any full way. We can sort of kind of get our minds around grasping the words, but we don’t fully know what they mean in a worked out doctrine.

This is the only notion of God in which I’m interested. I’m not interested in a notion of God that is not consonant with the greatest conceivable being. If there is a god or gods who suffers any imperfection, then I’m not interested. It is only the greatest conceivable being who is worthy of worship and devotion.

This is a God to be feared with a biblical notion of fear. This is a God who is holy and just and can be justified in commanding death, or even causing death in a worldwide flood.  In fact, he has the right to take my life. I realize how incredibly controversial all that is, but this is, on my view, the Christian God. This is part of the bigness and I accept the full package.

This is also a God who is personal. This is a God of love, faithfulness and steadfastness.

A True Myth

This is big, but the idea of the gospel is more outlandish than all that. This God who is the greatest conceivable being was born in a manger. This God, who stands outside of the universe and is the creator and sustainer of all, experienced hunger and thirst and acne (I’m guessing) and excitement and disappointment (he wept, after all). He lived a perfect life filled with love for others, but was never soft on sin.

This God held into being the very cross upon which he was crucified, the very humans who would do him harm, to die for those sins and every sin.

It’s ridiculous. It’s preposterous. As a professor of philosophy, I have familiarity with the great ideas in human history. I know of no bigger idea than this.

But I also happen to think it is true.

It’s what C.S. Lewis would call a true myth. By “myth”, Lewis did not mean it was fictional. Rather he saw the bigness of the gospel claims and the cosmic meaning and purpose the gospel provides.  But it is not a pure or typical myth, for Lewis, since the Gospels involve historical claims of real people at real times. Pure myth is simply not the genre of the Gospels. He says:

I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion — those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mystical wealth of the Pagan world around them — was precisely the matter of great myths. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another, but nothing was simply alike. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time… yet also so luminous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god — we are no longer polytheists — then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not “a religion,” nor “a philosophy.” It is the summing up and actuality of them all (Surprised by Joy).

It’s history and we thereby have evidence for these crazy claims. I find the evidence compelling, but I’ll be the first to say that it isn’t coercive. The evidence can be and is rejected.

However, there is a way in which the evidence coupled with the bigness and the beauty of the offer of the gospel becomes so very attractive, I’ve given my life to its truth.

Thank you for reading! If you like this content, sign up to get new posts in your email inbox:


Also follow me: @travdickinson
""/
Christianity, Dialogue

You need community (including those who disagree)

Christianity was never meant to be lived in isolation. Though there are ways in which Christianity concerns the individual (e.g., each of us must choose this day whom we will serve), the call has always been a call to community.

The need for community is especially pronounced when it comes to grappling with the deep and difficult questions of the faith. We need community. We need people in our lives with whom we share and think about our ideas on a deep level.

But not all community is equally good. A community full of folks exactly alike is not going to sufficiently challenge one to think carefully. Of course a community that is extremely hostile can also make it difficult since everything is under attack.

The best situation is to have community that is diverse.

Likeminded community

I think everyone needs a community of likeminded folks where we can together explore the implications of our view and think about it rationally. For the Christian, this is often a church community. When I go to church on a Sunday morning, I expect to be challenged in how to live my life in light of the gospel and the claims of the Bible (its implications). I don’t expect a defense of the Bible every single Sunday before my pastor preaches from the Bible. He doesn’t need to. Most everyone there already believes that the Bible is source of divine authority. It is typically appropriate for him to simply preach assuming its truth. But we should also, as Christians, think carefully about Christianity, including what evidence there is for believing it is true. It is okay for this to be a community of likeminded individuals with shared assumptions working together in this intellectual pursuit.

Friends who disagree

We should also have a variety of people with whom we disagree but are friends. It is ideal when these are genuine friends. In other words, it is a great blessing to have people in our lives who really do care about us, but take a very different view on matters. This way, discussions don’t reduce to mere spitting matches of who can best the other with wit and well placed zingers. There is trust and the discussion is charitable.

Disagreement in community is a very good thing. But of these two types of community, this is typically the sort we lack. Christians may know some unbelievers, for example, but the relationship is often hostile (that is, there isn’t that mutual trust and charity). Or we are only “friends” with that person insofar as there is openness to be evangelized. But once this option is foreclosed on, so goes the friendship. I think this is at our own detriment. We of course need to have people with whom we agree, but we also desperately need those with whom we disagree in order to grapple with the deep and difficult issues of the faith.

2 Payoffs

This sort of community of diversity has at least two payoffs.

First, having a diverse community helps us to not go off the deep end intellectually. It is much more difficult, though not impossible, to have crazy beliefs while in this sort of community. The reason why this is so is that those who come at the things very differently will almost certainly push on the weakest and wildest parts of our views. So if we’ve got something crazy and we are in genuine dialogue with those who believe differently, they will likely push us to have good rational reasons for those beliefs or drop them because they are, well, crazy.

Second, having a diverse community will help us not give up our core beliefs too quickly. What I mean is that some bit of intellectual tenacity is a good thing. This tenacity comes when we know that we have friends who share our beliefs and (hopefully) have good reasons for them. It’s almost a certainty that at some point we will get into a discussion and realize that we really don’t have a good reason for some belief. We may find we need to drop the belief. However, being able to pose the challenge to our likeminded friends, we may find there is plenty of good evidence for the belief. If we had dropped it simply because we failed to muster much in terms of evidence on the spot, this would have been much too soon.

Don’t go at it alone

In short, don’t go at it alone. Embed yourself with likeminded folks as well as folks with whom you disagree.

Welcome to my blog! ~Travis Dickinson, PhD