From: “Matt“
Subject: Thoughts From a Non-Stereotypical Christian

Man, the first thing I want to do is apologize. I spent a good part of the day today reading your hate mail and your responses to them. They are perfect...and utterly hysterical (your responses, that is). But comedy aside, I am so sorry you have to deal with those extremists in the first place.

It’s not common for a Christian to write in and apologize for the behavior of other Christians. It has happened a couple of times, but this is probably the longest and most detailed presentation I’ve seen.

Once or twice I’ve been told that I am too harsh or too sarcastic in my replies to the Hate Mail. Perhaps that is true. Matt, however, doesn’t see it and although he doesn’t state it outright, I think that he may perceive at least a little bit why: it just wouldn’t be psychologically realistic to constantly treat all of that nonsense, all of the smug arrogance, all of the spite, and all of the attacks with the utmost seriousness all of the time.

Matt is sorry that I have to deal with such things all the time, and I admit that with many it can be quite draining. It even seems to give me a headache at times. I do, however, have two means to make it better. The first is by posting expanded responses publicly on the site. I quickly find out whether the person I’m writing to is someone with whom a civil and productive conversation is possible; even if it isn’t, though, I am inclined to keep going because you never know where it will lead. Much of the time I am able to construct nice Mailbag features which might either provide food for thought to some other theist or it might provide atheists with handy ways of answering similar comments in their own correspondence. Either way, the fact that I’m not simply writing for that one person is a relief.

Second, I learned not to take such people too seriously. Taking someone seriously is work — it requires the expense of intellectual, emotional, and psychological effort. The fact of the matter is, though, that some people aren’t worth that effort. Arguments may warrant a sound rebuttal, but that doesn’t mean that the person making nonsensical arguments (and ignoring your efforts to correct them) deserves to be taken just as seriously as a person who takes the time to construct careful and reasonable arguments. Maybe if I had a full-time staff to handle such things I could expect that, but as it is there’s only me and I have other things to do.

 

They don't realize that the moment they begin to attack your position or defend their own, they have doomed themselves to foolishness. The simple fact of the matter, which none of those insane amount of people comprehends, is that you cannot prove the existence of God/gods rationally. They just have to accept that. Any assertion (and I use the word loosely) they try to make to prove otherwise is inherently and inevitably fallacious.

Here I have to disagree with Matt slightly. I don’t think that it is necessarily true that “you cannot prove the existence of God/gods rationally.“ This will be true in some cases but not in others — it all depends upon what characteristics we attribute to whatever god we are thinking about trying to prove.

However, in most of the cases I actually have to deal with, the characteristics attributed to the god someone is trying to prove to me don’t typically allow for rational proof — thus, on a practical level Matt is making a very good point. If you try to prove something which you have defined in a way that excludes rational proof, you will likely end up talking in circles and making yourself look foolish.

 

Clearly, the thought of not being able to prove the existence of God/gods is threatening to them, or they wouldn't waste their and your time. And that's too bad because it implies an immaturity in their faith development. If their credence in being Christian is contingent on their being able to persuade you (and/or others) against atheism, then their faith is weak. Because faith in God/gods requires us to believe in Him/Her/them, particularly in the absence of proof. If you need proof and need others to agree with that proof then you inherently lack faith. And that puts them in the same boat as you (only they are much more confused and delusional). Isn't that the mother of all ironies!?

Here Matt is making another very good point, one I’ve seen made by a number of atheists as well: Christianity had traditionally emphasized the religious an moral importance of having faith in God, but if faith is so important why do so many Christians insist on trying to construct a non-faith basis for their religion? It’s an interesting contradiction, I think. If I thought that faith was so important I would be spending my time trying to inspire faith in people rather than trying to construct logical arguments which, if successful, would obviate the need for faith.

As Matt notes, it is ironic because anyone who believes because of rational proofs, arguments, or evidence is essentially a person without faith — just like me.

 

They'll be smug in their views and condemn you for yours, but in reality if at a subconscious level, they really believe what you believe -- that in order to acknowledge God, you need proof. Of course if they were even remotely open-minded and took the time to understand your perspective, this would all be pretty evident to them.

I think that Matt may be correct here: by trying to create logical arguments to prove the existence of their God, Christians are essentially acknowledging that “faith” isn’t enough and some sort of proof and/or evidence is needed. They are, then, conceding the skeptical atheist’s starting premise that we need good reasons in order to believe something, with the primary difference in positions coming down to what qualifies as “good reasons” and why.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...