Mailbag: C.S. Lewis, Part 1

From "David"
Subject: A RATIONALLY calm dismissal of atheism...

[T]here is a trend among young persons not to "believe" in God, I feel. Atheism becomes a compound of arrogance and fear, as though belief in something higher than one's self is compromised by a fear in the inability to comprehend. A weirdness. People want to be God, and want what they want for them, not "what God wants" of them. Yet, if a Perfect Being knows what is best for you, is He/She/It not more likely in the right than your own misguided imperfect self? Just a thought...

First David suggest that he might offer a "rational" and calm dismissal of atheism, then he immediately launches into a series of half-truths and invectives against those with the temerity not to believe in his god. Quite sad, really, but not at all surprising - it's been my experience that those who think that they have easy answers to the challenges posed by atheism are also those who have the least understanding of what it means to be rational and logical in the first place.

Is there a trend towards atheism among young people? Not that I am aware of - I've not seen any indications of any real drop in theism among young people today. I have to wonder if David simply made that up...

Assuming that atheism is "a compound of arrogance and fear" is not a "rational" dismissal of atheism. Why? Because it dismisses atheism based upon presumed psychological attitudes of atheists. It totally neglects any actual arguments made by people against theism or in defense of atheism. I doubt that David really knows any atheists, much less enough atheists in order to make such a massive generalization.

It might make David feel better to imagine that there are no more grounds to atheism than "arrogance and fear," but one might plausible argue that the exact same things motivate theism - and I doubt that he would take such a suggestion very kindly. Would that make David a hypocrite? You bet.

And, for them to consider religion at all in a serious light is mocking, insulting. Many without having read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, or Christian mysticism, assume to know what Christianity is. They ask of the theist to explain himself.

Here we find David assuming that atheists don't know a great deal about religion while pretending to discuss it intelligently - but David is simply projecting here. It is he who is pretending to talk intelligently about a topic which he knows nothing or next to nothing: atheism. I doubt that he has read anything by atheists philosophers on the subject of religion and theism, but then he asks atheists to explain themselves...

While it is certainly true that there are any number of atheists out there who don't know a great deal about certain religions or even religion generally, that certainly isn't true of all. In fact, a great many atheists are very well educated about religion - often better educated and better informed than the average theist. A large number of atheists were once religious themselves, thus giving them an "insider's" view of that faith, and then only left their religious beliefs behind after detailed examination of those beliefs, of their religion's history, and even of other religions as well.

When we ask theists to explain themselves, it is generally because we are aware of the issues and don't believe that the theists' arguments are valid. We ask that the theist go through their arguments as we have done in order to recognize the flaws; this would allow them to either construct a better argument or to drop a flawed argument in favor of something else entirely.

How does a Christian, then, deal with the atheism of so many? How is a Christian to respond to a bitter atheist, like Sartre, or Shopenhauser? And, lastly, how shall a Christian present Christianity to an unChristian group, without there being derision, hostility, misapprehension? Almost too simply the answer is within THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY, by C.S. Lewis.

Too simple is correct - C.S. Lewis' book is quite popular among Christians, but it is one of the weakest attempts at apologetics one could possibly try and use. There seems to be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the popularity of a work of apologetics and the soundness of its logical arguments - the works of Josh McDowell are another good example of that.

If someone like David wants to avoid derision and hostility, here are a couple of tips. First, don't assume that you already know all you need to about atheism and atheists - chances are, you don't know a fraction of what you think you do, and even less of what you need to. Second, educate yourself about atheism and make a concerted attempt to avoid common myths and misunderstandings. That might mean independent research of atheists' writings or it might simply mean asking some questions. In general, asking questions is a far wiser course of action than making assumptions about people you don't know and have never met.

Third, learn a bit more about your own religion and theology as well - employing the weakest apologists like Lewis or McDowell makes it look like you haven't even done your homework on your own beliefs, much less on atheists. More sophisticated apologists, like William Lane Craig, will help you make more sophisticated arguments; that, in turn, will allow you to get a great deal more respect from atheists, no matter how much they may disagree with you. A good argument that isn't convincing is much better than lousy argument that you yourself wouldn't find convincing if you only understood the issues at hand.

Finally, don't assume that your beliefs are so obviously and plainly true that there aren't any good reasons for anyone to disagree with you. The fact of the matter is, you are a human and you aren't infallible. No matter how strongly and sincerely you hold your beliefs, it is possible that you could be wrong and that the atheist's position is in fact more reasonable. There is always the chance that you may have more to learn - so enter into any such conversation with enough humility and humanity to recognize that could find out that you have been mistaken and may adopt a new position in the end. Otherwise, you're just preaching - and there's no reason to assume that anyone is really interested in listening to you preach.

This conversation continues tomorrow.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...