C.H. Spurgeon writes:
[Dr. K. Scott Oliphant, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary argues]: Unbelief is irrational because, at its core, all sin is irrational. He argues, “Sin is essentially, and will remain, deeply unreasonable, utterly irrational … Given that unbelief is at root the quintessential sin, it is therefore, necessarily, quintessentially irrational” (pp. 59-60). He backs up this proposition exegetically from Romans 1:18-32. ...The act of suppressing divine truth is sinful or “unrighteousness” (1:18). So sin is by nature the suppressing of truth. “In other words, God’s wrath is revealed from heaven because, in our wickedness and unrighteousness (in Adam), we hold down (in our souls) that which we know to be the case” (p. 64)
So what knowledge is suppressed? Paul tells us we suppress the universal truths about God — that He exists, He is infinite, eternal, wise, unchanging, glorious and wise. Far from being a mere intellectual knowledge of God, there is included in this a very personal knowledge of God communicated from His Person to our person. ...How do sinners suppress divine truth? By exchange. We take the glory of our great God and Creator and exchange His glory for superficial images of reality. The next step is to worship and serve the phantoms of reality we create. The truth of the created order becomes twisted into what we think is right. There is an exchange of the natural for the unnatural, like in the case of homosexual relationships (Rom. 1:26-27).
Most Christians won't come right out and discuss it, but this is a correct and orthodox theological point being made: disbelief in God is a sin for Christianity. Atheists aren't simply mistaken, wrongheaded, or misled; instead, atheists are committing sins no less deliberate and immoral than people who steal, murder, or lie. This goes a long way towards explaining the assumptions of Christians who don't openly acknowledge or discuss this position, like for example the assumption that atheists cannot be moral.
Important to the conception of atheism as sin is that atheism must be chosen deliberately and in full conscious knowledge that it is wrong. This first commits Christians to a voluntarist position on beliefs: Christians must regard beliefs as something a person can choose, reject, and switch as a matter of will just like one changes shirts or picks up a book. The arguments in defense of this position are very weak while the arguments in favor of an involuntarist position are very strong; this creates significant weakness in the Christian position.
The Christian is also committed to thinking that atheists aren't really atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, but if atheism is a sin then people who call themselves atheists must know that the Christian god really does exist just as orthodox Christianity describes it; therefore they can't really be atheists. Christians are thus claiming that they know atheists better than they know themselves and/or that atheists are lying to themselves about what they really believe.
Alleged evidence for all this doesn't come from atheists' actual behavior or statements, but from Christians' own ideology — which means that they are using their own ideology is offered as "evidence" that critics of their ideology are wrong. Rather than seriously listen to atheists and consider what they have to say, such Christians are simply looking backwards to their own ideology and coming up with "answers" that do nothing more than force other human beings to fit into theological preconceptions. In effect, atheists are treated less like individual human beings and more like object lessons for a theology class.
Strange, seeing how I realized I was lying to myself in my beliefs just before I realized I’m atheist. Did I get it the wrong way around then?
Another perfect example of circular logic being used to justify otherwise unjustifiable beliefs.
I am sure this appeared several weeks ago, and then disappeared. Are all posts planned in advance weeks before they are posted?
“Atheists aren’t simply mistaken, wrongheaded, or misled; instead, atheists are committing sins no less deliberate and immoral than people who steal, murder, or lie.”
Right, and when an anti-atheistic Christian brings up the old “The greatest atrocities of the twentieth century…” argument, I can just say something like “Yeah… like being an atheist…”
Austin, your interpretation of Romans chapter 1 is incorrect. Paul is condemning the idolators, not unbelievers.
Romans 1:22-23 states: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal men or birds or animals or reptiles.”
In verses 24 and 25 he goes on to include amongst these idolators women who engage in “unnatural relations” (anal sex? lesbianism?) and male homosexuals. Paul concludes in verse 32 that all these deserve to die. He thus brings his teaching into line with that of Leviticus which condemns homosexuals to be killed by stoning.
“In verses 24 and 25 he goes on to include amongst these idolators women who engage in “unnatural relations” (anal sex? lesbianism?) and male homosexuals. Paul concludes in verse 32 that all these deserve to die. He thus brings his teaching into line with that of Leviticus which condemns homosexuals to be killed by stoning. ”
Isn’t the idea of “unnatural behaviour” quite subjective though? It could just as easily condemn something like leaving your feet bare as it would homosexuality?
I haven’t offered any interpretations of Romans here. I am, though, agreeing that a Christian’s interpretation of Romans is consistent with traditional and orthodox interpretations.
You appear to be ignorant of the fact that nonbelievers have been treated as idolaters for putting things like man or money in the place of God.
Most Christians won’t come right out and discuss it, but this is a correct and orthodox theological point being made: disbelief in God is a sin for Christianity. Atheists aren’t simply mistaken, wrongheaded, or misled; instead, atheists are committing sins no less deliberate and immoral than people who steal, murder, or lie. [...] Important to the conception of atheism as sin is that atheism must be chosen deliberately and in full conscious knowledge that it is wrong.
I think Christians tend to use this argument a lot amongst themselves, but very rarely, in my experience, come out and say to an atheist, “You believe, and you know you believe, you’re just being contrary.” The reason, I think, is that while this argument comfortably reduces the behavior of the atheist into something palatable to the Christian’s ideology, it is, nonetheless, very obviously a terrible argument. In other words, saying You know I’m right is meant to reassure the speaker, not to convince his opponent.
I was going to leave a comment on Spurgeon’s blog. But then I saw that that was a one year old post, so I decided it would be better not to comment on it. I had already typed up my response, so I’ll just copy-and-paste it here, so if Spurgeon wishes to respond, he can.
I feel I must point out the glaring irony of using a fallacious appeal to authority and circular reasoning to argue that others are irrational.
If the question is “Is it rational to believe Christianity?”, answering it with “It is irrational to disbelieve Christianity because Christian authorities proclaim that it is irrational to disbelieve Christianity” only shows that your own reasoning is deeply irrational. You can’t demonstrate Christian authority by appealing exclusively to Christian authority–it presupposes what you intend to demonstrate.
And your accusation that PalMD is making assumptions about scripture is in itself making assumptions about him that you have no right to make. You are committing an ad hominem fallacy–rejecting PalMD’s arguments by presuming something about him. How do you know he didn’t read the scriptures himself, find them to be inaccurate, and then reject them a posteriori based on that reasoning? And it will get you nowhere to answer that question with “Scripture says so” because, once again, that would be circular and an inappropriate appeal to authority. It is the very authority of those scriptures that is in question–citing scripture to answer the question merely begs the question.
Suffice it to say that your “People who don’t believe Paul are irrational because Paul says so” and “PalMD rejects scripture because he’s biased” arguments are not convincing. If anything, your reliance on fallacies and presumptions about your opponents makes me wonder whether your opponents might be right in thinking that you are being irrational. Rationally minded people won’t have to fall back on illogical arguments and attacks on others in order to maintain their views.
The opposite of faith is not doubt,
but certainty.
Reason without intellectual and moral courage isn’t worth much. Out of such parlor games wicked religions and ideologies grow.
Your “About” article is more about your perception of Christianity than it is about atheism.
I think Christians tend to use this argument a lot amongst themselves. I’m sure you think a lot of things, but thinking it doesn’t make it so. Here is what Christians really think, There is an innate awareness in all of us, of right and wrong, and we all choose wrong most of the time. We see goodness and perfection all around us in creation, yet we can’t muster the conviction to live that way. We know that there are, or should be, consequences for all the lies we’ve told, all the seduction and drunkenness and swearing… It’s depressing if you really examine yourself.
But when we see injustice, we cry out for justice, as long as it’s not me that gets justice. But you hope that there will be a day of reckoning for that person who did that terrible thing, and didn’t get thrown in jail or whatever. And you know in your heart of hearts that you too will have to answer to the One who created this beautiful planet we call home.
Eternity is a long time, what if you’re wrong. If I’m wrong, I’m wormfood just like you, but if you’re wrong, weeping and gnashing teeth for eternity. Ouch that’s hot, all day, every day. If you know that something really horrible was going to happen to someone, wouldn’t you tell them? We’ll I just told you!
If Jesus is who He says He is… If he really raised Himself from the dead, You might want to know what His standards are… Otherwise, good luck on Judgment Day. I
Actually, it’s about Christians’ perception of atheists — and how arrogant and false it can be.
All Christians, everywhere, at all times? In what way did you acquire the authority to speak for all Christians?
So, Christians don’t learn right from wrong through family, culture, community, etc.?
So, in addition to being able to speak for all Christians, you also have the authority to speak for all atheists as well? At what point did you acquire the ability to “know” what is in the “hearts” of people you don’t know and have never met?
Pascal’s Wager, addressed and refuted so many times that whenever it is used in such a simplistic form as you are using it here, it’s a guaranteed indicator that the writer hasn’t done much research into atheism, atheists, or debates over the existence of gods.
Steve’s description of what “all Christians everywhere and through all time” think, while it does not accurately portray all Christians (I have met Coptic Christians who have a very different outlook), it does fall in line with one of the three ways that Western cultures have viewed the nature of humanity. This philosophy (which philosophers like to give one of their own – Thomas Hobbes – credit for) essentially claims that humans are evil by nature and that they need a strong power to govern them. It is fairly obvious that the Hobbesian view is excellent propaganda for any authoritarian regime. Another view is traditionally credited to Rousseau and is its exact opposite – the people are inherently good, but society drives them to do evil things. John Locke, one of the major influences on the founding fathers of the United States, managed to come up with a philosophy that side-steps the issue of good and evil. His claim was that all people are inherently flexible, they have no natural instincts and learn all behaviors, both good and evil.
I would like to point out that that among anthropologists all three views are considered to be equally correct and incorrect. Since anthropology is the study of human nature, they probably have a better handle on it than any political philosopher. Humans have instincts, just like every other animal on Earth. Whether you want to call those instincts good or evil depends on how you define good and evil, but the purpose of these instincts is to ensure human survival. Without our instincts, we simply wouldn’t be here. Some of those instincts make us aggressive, which can be necessary to defend ourselves but can also lead to unnecessary violence. This is a nod to Hobbes. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that both humans and other social animals are neurologically wired to depend on each other, so that feelings like sympathy and kindness are just as much a part of our ancient instincts as the aggressive ones we don’t like. This is your nod to Rousseau. However, one of the things that makes humans different from other animals (besides having buttocks) is the very large frontal cortex, the part of the brain that allows them to override their instincts to make decisions based on learning and conscious thinking. There’s Locke. All of these ideas – including the Biblical inclination – are exaggerations of human reality, and all three exaggerations have political uses.
The reality is that humans are simply much more complicated than our generalizations. Our nature includes instincts that would be considered good by most people, bad by most people, and would be disagreed upon by different cultures around the world. It also includes a limited – far from complete – ability to behave against our instincts. Those who want to argue that all people are evil by nature have a long political tradition to back them up, but closer examination of the evidence shows a much more interesting picture than a bunch of moral cowards hiding their own guilt behind the grade-school ‘but everybody does it!’ justification. Let’s have less belief and more examination of the facts, please.
The thing is, Steve, the God of your Bible is so loathsome that I would no more worship it than I would that German who imprisoned his daughter and their children in the basement. I won’t worship evil for my own convenience.
Oh, and “well, I just told you!” OK, great, thank you, you did tell me. So now you can stfu about it, right? Except it never works out that way.
Austin, you did a fairly decent job of expressing a biblical view though it is not necessarily Christian as expressed in a previous comment. The point of the passage is directed at understanding the unbeliever. The emphasis is not on knowledge, but on suppression of truth. Atheists do believe in God because it is evident to them in creation. However, atheists as any unbelievers do not wish to be accountable to God and so they suppress the truth of God.
Because they have suppressed truth, Romans 1, goes on to say that the unbeliever has become foolish in his speculations and goes down one or both of two paths, idolatry or indulgence in sin. Interestingly, sometimes church going people are really idolaters who put on a form of religion to suppress the truth of God in their own way. Very tricky.
Just so you know, this is not just used in Christian circles, I use it constantly in evangelism. I never ask a person to reason when I present the truth of the Gospel or the Bible, I ask them to submit to the God of the Bible. The fact is that someone who is suppressing the truth of the Gospel is inherently unable to reason himself into faith.
So is faith irrational? It depends on who is right. You or God.
Romans 1, is not circular reasoning but presuppositional reasoning, which is what we all reason with. There is no rational objective thought, only thought based off of our presupposition of reality. I presuppose that the God of the Bible is true. You presuppose that He is false. I presuppose that He wrote a book that tells how we should relate to Him (Deny self and Follow Christ, Mark 8:34ff.). When presented with the truth of Scripture, it is never proper to speculate about it’s rationality, you either submit to it or reject it. If it is reality then it will be rational (which it is).
It is very condescending for us to sit in judgment on the Creator of the universe. He sits in judgment on us. That is the point of the passage, but with good news. By submitting to Him and following Christ, we enjoy life, by rejecting the God of the Bible we experience wrath. Reasoning comes later when you have a mind that is sanctified by Christ. (John 17:17)
So the choice is continue rejecting Christ and submit to my own authority (an authority that is only based on a few years of limited experience) or to submit to the God of the Bible (an authority that has eternal experience and perspective that created reality).
Greg Bahnsen was better on this subject than I am. Check out his stuff.
That’s a contraction with the definition of atheism. So, it’s a belief that can only be held by people who either don’t know what atheism is or who don’t understand basic logic.
That’s a popular myth among bigoted Christians, but it’s false.
Begging the Question falllacy.
It’s arrogant to presuppose that you can tell a person you don’t know and have never met what they think. Please consider asking people questions first rather than simply making assumptions about them.
Begging the Question fallacy — and ironic, given how condescending you are here.
I no more “choose” to reject your god than I do to reject Odin. Or fairies.
I have, and you’re wrong. His writings really aren’t any better than yours on this.
Having been an atheist, I would like to make a simple point. The fact is that atheists DO believe in a god, but the god they believe in is themselves. The evidence of this is found in their “arguments.” Which do they espouse, that which we call The Word of God, or their own opinions? When one dwells entirely within his “own opinion,” which is almost always something he shares with others, he is simply saying, “I am a god.” Because one holds that belief, it is quite foolish to try to convince them otherwise. Have a good day and I hope you always enjoy the consequences of your faith.
Then they aren’t atheists, are they?
I look forward to you demonstrating how.
According to you, the Word of God — since their opinions are their words and they believe they are god.
1. Why?
2. Feel free to demonstrate that atheists dwell “entirely” within their own opinions.
So, apologists who promote their religion to atheists are all foolish? I’ll be sure to let them know! I assume you won’t mind if I cite you by name to them.
Feel free to explain what you mean by “faith” and what “faith” you think I have.