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.

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.