Are Christian Churches Producing Atheists?
Churches are producing atheists by not answering the questions of young people and explaining why they believe in the Bible, said a Christian apologist who works with young adults. ...[Anthony Horvath] further noted, “Books like Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’ and Dan Brown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’ do not become best sellers in a society that understands what Christianity is all about.” ...As a solution, Horvath recommends apologetics – the defense of the Christian faith.
Source: The Christian Post
This position really isn't very credible. Are we to sincerely believe that Christian churches and organizations are not engaging in apologetics? Is Anthony Horvath the first Christian to stop, look around, and think "Gee, maybe Christians should engage in some apologetics now and then in order to explain why they believe what they believe"? That's all just too ridiculous to take seriously.
Now, if Anthony Horvath had argued that Christian churches are doing a poor job at explaining why they believe what they do and must improve their apologetics, that might be plausible. If he had argued that the questions being asked by young people today need different sorts of answers than what apologetics geared towards previous generations can provide, that might also be plausible. Those are more cautious and careful arguments that could be taken more seriously.
As it is, Anthony Horvath is making claims that aren't even remotely plausible. People don't become atheists because Christians aren't engaging in any apologetics; instead, people become atheists because Christian apologetics isn't working so well. Defense of Christianity is common and easy to find, but that doesn’t mean that it's always credible and convincing. Books like The God Delusion and The Da Vinci Code don't require a society that doesn't understand Christianity in order to be popular, just a society which no longer accepts traditional, orthodox Christianity like it used to.
The only explanation that comes to mind for Anthony Horvath making these statements is the assumption that to understand Christianity is to accept and believe it. If people are rejecting Christianity, it must be because no one is defending it — not because they understand and reject it. If people are buying books like The God Delusion and The Da Vinci Code, it must be because they don't understand Christianity — not because they understand it and don't accept it.
I see this attitude often from both Christian and Muslim apologists who assume that because I'm an atheist, I must never have learned anything about their religion, read their holy books, read their arguments, etc. This represents a denial that anyone could read the same information and consider the same arguments but come to a different conclusion — it's a denial that the alleged arguments and evidence for their beliefs could be ambiguous, equivocal, and unconvincing. It is, in my opinion, the most extreme sort of arrogance and egotism that I ever encounter.
Comments
To know me is to love me.
Re: Paul Buchman,
Do you still love him if you know hes imaginary?
I see this attitude often from both Christian and Muslim apologists who assume that because I’m an atheist, I must never have learned anything about their religion, read their holy books, read their arguments, etc. This represents a denial that anyone could read the same information and consider the same arguments but come to a different conclusion — it’s a denial that the alleged arguments and evidence for their beliefs could be ambiguous, equivocal, and unconvincing.
I’d like to see what would happen if you set the Christian and Muslim apologists against each other. The rapid-fire barrage of conversion attempts (through trying to teach each other about one another’s religions) would provide endless amusement.
1A: Apologist tells me that if I read the Bible, I’d see that Xianity is right and the book is flawless.
1B: I respond I have read the Bible–and used to be a Xian (a very devout, proselytizing Xian–using many of the same arguments they’re using now). I further put down items I consider “flaws” in the book.
2A: Apologist tells me I didn’t understand the Bible and was never really a Xian. Asks me to give him/her the verses I’m quoting that represent “flaws” (because I must be misquoting or misrepresenting–and they’ve apparently never seen these verses before–oddly, since they know the Bible so well…?)
2B. I provide the verses, often with a quick run down of the blanket apologetics thrown over them–and explain why I don’t accept that as an adequate response.
At this point the apologist will either focus on something else, throw down an even lamer “explanation,” or tell me I simply can’t see the real meaning because I don’t believe in god.
This last one is amusing and I’ve also heard it from Muslims (as you mentioned). I fail to see the logic of offering me a book to convince me god exists–and then telling me I can’t possibly understand the books _real_ meaning unless I believe in god BEFORE I read it.
I’m not kidding. I’ve probably heard this 4 times (from 3 different Xians and 1 Muslim).
Fei:
I would also love to see a Xian vs. Muslim apologist match. Having dialogued with both–the arguments are nearly identical. The one point of contention would be on the validity of the books: Koran vs. Bible.
Whereas Xians view the Bible as miraculous due to the numerous authors and time-periods involved in it’s production, Muslims view this as a point against the Bible. Xians view the Bible as perfect, Muslims view it as horribly flawed. So, in that regard, the Muslim would argue more like the atheist in regard to attacks on the cohesiveness of the Bible.
The Muslim argument for the Koran is that it was written by a single author in a quick time-frame and solidified into modern form during a time-frame much closer to the original writing than the Bible can claim. Oddly, Muslims also view internal lack of contradiction as miraculous–even though they say the Koran has one author. (The book likely was edited and revised–but they are right it happened very quickly and has been set in stone since–apparently).
It would be an interesting dialogue, for sure. And I really would like to see it.
“I’d like to see what would happen if you set the Christian and Muslim apologists against each other”.
“I would also love to see a Xian vs. Muslim apologist match”.
You can see a spoof of such a match at:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/233506/stephen_vs_colbert/
I’d like to see what would happen if you set the Christian and Muslim apologists against each other.
From the few conversations I’ve seen so far, there were only two outcommes:
(A) Both pretend mutual interest in the religion of the opponent. They swap their standard proselytizing phrases (like “Jesus loves you all!” and “Allah is greater than you can imagine!”) and - after they realize that they know next to nothing about the opponent religion - finally halfheartedly promise to read the others holy book or other writings. Eventually they then concentrate on the similarities between the religions and start rambling on their common enemies (evolution, secularism, paganism, etc.)
(B)
They start a rather lengthy “conversation” with philosophical and pseudo-scientific arguments. It’s quite boring to read these, because there is no real line of reasoning. Instead it seems that every reply is mostly independent of the previous post. The “winner” on this is the one who gets the last word, regardless of the quality of the argument.
There is a rather theoretical option that I didn’t manage to observe yet:
(C)
The space-time implodes locally due to the external overpressure of irony.
Quite possible if you look at some theistic arguments
Daggetto:
Thanks for that synopsis.
>finally halfheartedly promise to read the others holy book or other writings.
I promised a Muslim I’d read the Koran. I got fairly far into it, trying to give it the benefit of the doubt everywhere I could. When I got to a section that sounded pretty clearly like a call to harm infidels, I put it back on the shelf. Up to that point, it had seemed only to invoke the wrath of Allah against those who didn’t believe. But calling believers to lay their wrath on the nonbelievers was too much. At that point, the reason for reading the book (I was told that it would change my atheist mind) was pretty much in the waste basket.
>Instead it seems that every reply is mostly independent of the previous post.
Atheists get this as well when they argue with apologists. If Argument #1 is successfully refuted, they don’t respond to the refutation, they lay out Argument #2 at that point. It’s like a contest: “OK, you refuted Argument #1–but what do you say to Argument #2?!”
They often do not appear to stop and examine why Argument #1 failed or give their reaction to the rebuttal. They’re trying so hard to convince the infidel that they aren’t seeing the problems with their own apologetics. They aren’t asking: “Why didn’t _I_ think of that [rebuttal]?” That’s certainly one of the most interesting things to me about taking on apologists.
Leaving a church is rarely intellectual. Most people leave because they are bored and fed up with being bullied by blockheads and hypocrites. Many people who left the theology of Catholicism, went on to embrace the theology of Communism. A blockhead is a blockhead is a blockhead.