Any suggestions to refute atheism

[jttierney1]

If you were going to give a book to an atheist, in order to refute atheism, which book would you give and why?

I’ve read GK Chesteron’s The Everlasting Man and was impressed with his logic. If anyone has read Chesterton and someone else, which did you like better.

 

[Shaken]

I would not give titles. I tell people, if you are really interested you can go and look up that topic. Books on the subject have been written down through the ages by scholars who are much smarter, very well read, and who have more and better words that I do to explain the matter. I wouldn’t do the research for them. If they are really serious in their search and not just baiting a “heathen” Catholic, they will pursue it on their own.

 

[Magnus467]

Although not a book refuting atheism, C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain contains a good deal of explanation on an issue often brought up by atheists.

 

[PhilVaz]

Here is The Problem of Pain (complete mp3 audio)

I still vote for Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft / Tacelli as your best single book to give your average atheist or “skeptic.”

For even more sophisticated arguments, see The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009 book, a bit pricey, wait for it in the library) or William Lane Craig’s smaller Reasonable Faith (updated in 2008). But these are for more hardcore readers/philosophers.

Specifically on the Catholic faith, there is How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (audio chapter on Science) or Dinesh’s What’s So Great About Christianity (2007) which counters bogus claims made by “new atheists” Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al.

That reminds me: look for the Craig vs. Hitchens debate which just took place last weekend. I’m searching for the MP3 or a video to appear somewhere.

Phil P

 

[Tomster]

“The Gods of Atheism” by Vincent P. Miceli S.J.

 

[Marcus_Red]

How to refute atheism?

Show us a god.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Empirical evidence of a deity would go a long way, I’m sure.

Anybody have any of this?

 

[wasmit]

If you were going to give a book to an atheist, in order to refute atheism, which book would you give and why?

I’ve read GK Chesteron’s The Everlasting Man and was impressed with his logic. If anyone has read Chesterton and someone else, which did you like better.

evidence/logic supporting the supernatural truth claims of theism(any religion) would work very well.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Empirical evidence of a deity would go a long way, I’m sure.

Anybody have any of this?

By God’s very nature, He cannot be subject to empirical evidence, since He cannot be observed.

There are, however, very good reasons for believing in God, principally:

• the [ cosmological argumentkalām (The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe);
• the teleological argument, based on the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe;
• and the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

It is most enlightening, in this regard, to listen to actual debates between theists and atheists. I am eager to obtain the recording of the William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens debate which took place just a few days ago.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Empirical evidence of a deity would go a long way, I’m sure.

Anybody have any of this?

Nope.
Before the invention of the microscope, there was no empirical evidence of bacteria either.
That didn’t mean it wasn’t there.

To the OP - Mere Christianity by CS Lewis - it’s a really fast read.

 

[Shredderbeam]

By God’s very nature, He cannot be subject to empirical evidence, since He cannot be observed.

There are, however, very good reasons for believing in God, principally:

• the [kalām (The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe) cosmological argument;
• the teleological argument, based on the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe;
• and the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

It is most enlightening, in this regard, to listen to actual debates between theists and atheists. I am eager to obtain the recording of the William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens debate which took place just a few days ago.

God cannot be directly observed, but his effects presumably can. Empirical, courtroom-quality evidence of miracles that happened when prayed for, although not conclusive proof by itself, would certainly be carefully considered by your typical atheist - or at least myself.

The universe does not necessarily need to be thought of as something that began. It is possible that time is a spatial dimension, and that the universe exists as a permanent 4-D object, for example. Another possibility is that whatever medium the universe came to be in exists for unknown reasons, outside of time. Finally, demonstrating that the universe had a cause does not demonstrate that that cause was a deity.

The teleological argument is just an argument from ignorance. I don’t know why this universe is so friendly to life, or why its fundamental constants are the way they are. Perhaps design is the answer, or perhaps the anthropic principle is - or perhaps something else entirely. It is unknown.

The Gospels were written, what, at least 30 years after Jesus died? Can they still be thought to be accurate?

I’m really limited to skimming transcripts of debates - I don’t have a lot of free time and I need to keep my sanity.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Nope.
Before the invention of the microscope, there was no empirical evidence of bacteria either.
That didn’t mean it wasn’t there.

To the OP - Mere Christianity by CS Lewis - it’s a really fast read.

Right, but that’s where the burden of proof comes in. It’s upon the person who asserts a positive.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

God cannot be directly observed, but his effects presumably can. Empirical, courtroom-quality evidence of miracles that happened when prayed for, although not conclusive proof by itself, would certainly be carefully considered by your typical atheist - or at least myself.

The universe does not necessarily need to be thought of as something that began. It is possible that time is a spatial dimension, and that the universe exists as a permanent 4-D object, for example. Another possibility is that whatever medium the universe came to be in exists for unknown reasons, outside of time. Finally, demonstrating that the universe had a cause does not demonstrate that that cause was a deity.

The teleological argument is just an argument from ignorance. I don’t know why this universe is so friendly to life, or why its fundamental constants are the way they are. Perhaps design is the answer, or perhaps the anthropic principle is - or perhaps something else entirely. It is unknown.

The Gospels were written, what, at least 30 years after Jesus died? Can they still be thought to be accurate?

I’m really limited to skimming transcripts of debates - I don’t have a lot of free time and I need to keep my sanity.

Well, I hope that you will find the time to read the articles (your objections are addressed) and to listen to the debates in full.

 

[Marcus_Red]

By God’s very nature, He cannot be subject to empirical evidence, since He cannot be observed.

That God cannot be observed is certainly something I can agree with.

Not being observed is entirely consistent with his not existing.

It’s also the simplest explanation for his non observed-ness.

Why would anyone wish to dream up more complicated explanations?

 

[redhen]

To the OP - Mere Christianity by CS Lewis - it’s a really fast read.

Lewis uses the moral argument, but it has problems.

atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/argumentmorals.htm

Other social species also exhibit some of the self-conscious emotions like shame, and pride.
Any dog owner can tell you stories of how their dog displayed shame when confronted with something they did wrong. Does that mean dogs worship God?

 

[Jermosh]

You cannot prove a negative. So its impossible to prove either faith.

 

[JimO]

How to refute atheism?

Show us a god.

And what precisely do you mean by “show”? Do you mean allow your eyes to receive reflected light from a physical surface in a shape that you will be convinced is a god? Or would you prefer to smell, hear, taste, or touch God? If God is the Creator of the universe and wholly transcendent, then doesn’t it seem silly to ask to be “shown” God, as though God can be experienced through our five material senses. God would be puny indeed if this was the case.

I would argue that all of creation is a dim reflection of the transcendent God. The order and beauty in the universe from the galaxies down to the subatomic particles are a glimpse of the character of God. I would argue that certain characteristics of God are reflected in people who do generous, selfless acts for others as well as in the artistic expressions of others, and the intellectual pursuits of still others. And (I know from other threads you won’t accept this one) God revealed Himself by taking the form of man and leaving His Spirit to guide us.

However, the gift of free will allows us to shut off the spiritual part of ourselves and cut off our ability to be “shown” God.

I know people who would never accept any evidence - even if God “showed” Himself to them. They are so profoundly impressed with their own intellect that they would never believe in something they could not understand, which rules out God, of course.

So, I’m not convinced that “showing” God to you would be sufficient to convince you of anything. The more I talk with modern Atheists, the more I am convinced that Atheism isn’t simply the absence of a belief in God, it is the rejection of God. His existence is irrelvent to many Atheists. So, intelligent discussions about religion with those types of Atheists are pretty much pointless.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi JimO,

And what precisely do you mean by “show”?

I mean demonstrate. A theoretical argument that a thing exists is all well and good, but the proof of a pudding is in the eating. We can all follow Dirac’s arguments for the existence of positrons, but only an actual real detection of a positron is actual real evidence that they exist.

If God is the Creator of the universe and wholly transcendent, then doesn’t it seem silly to ask to be “shown” God, as though God can be experienced through our five material senses. God would be puny indeed if this was the case.

If God is wholly transcendent then he is unable to interact with the universe at all, and therefore doesn’t exist. He is at best, partially transcendent … if he exists. Try again.

I know people who would never accept any evidence - even if God “showed” Himself to them. They are so profoundly impressed with their own intellect that they would never believe in something they could not understand, which rules out God, of course.

If God showed up, how would you know it was Him? An atheist has only a speculative definition of God provided by theists. Who is to say that these theists have any clue what God is like? If a Being turned up one day claiming to be God, and didn’t appear to know my name, should I accept this Being’s claim to be God? What ID should I look for, and why should I accept your opinion on the matter in the first place?

There are certain things that I would expect God to know, if I met Him, in the same way that I could verify the identity of my daughter from her memories of things only she and I would remember. If you could produce a Being who would actually answer me when I talked to him, and could demonstrate the knowledge that any reasonable person would expect God to have, then I see no reason why I shouldn’t accept that He exists.

Whether He also has all the powers claimed for Him by His supporters would then be a matter of actual observation, rather than invention.

The more I talk with modern Atheists, the more I am convinced that Atheism isn’t simply the absence of a belief in God, it is the rejection of God.

It is not the rejection of God, it is rejection of belief in the existence of God. If I believed that God existed I could then decide whether or not to reject Him. We aren’t past first base yet.

Regards,

Marcus

 

[JimO]

I mean demonstrate. A theoretical argument that a thing exists is all well and good, but the proof of a pudding is in the eating. We can all follow Dirac’s arguments for the existence of positrons, but only an actual real detection of a positron is actual real evidence that they exist.

My point is that it’s not just theory. You simply won’t accept the available evidence - historical accounts, paranormal occurances such as miracles, the experiences of others, etc. The difference between a theoretical God and an actual God is the difference between blind faith and living faith. I don’t know how else to express it.

If God is wholly transcendent then he is unable to interact with the universe at all, and therefore doesn’t exist. He is at best, partially transcendent … if he exists. Try again.

He is wholly transcedent in that He defines and contains the universe. It doesn’t define or contain Him. Since He is Creator, then He can interact with the universe.

If God showed up, how would you know it was Him? An atheist has only a speculative definition of God provided by theists. Who is to say that these theists have any clue what God is like? If a Being turned up one day claiming to be God, and didn’t appear to know my name, should I accept this Being’s claim to be God? What ID should I look for, and why should I accept your opinion on the matter in the first place?

I’m not asking you to accept my opinion on the matter. You came to a Catholic website asking for evidence that God exists. I didn’t go to an Atheist website asking for evidence disproving God’s existence. First you limit the discussion to your own definition of evidence and then trivialize all the feedback you get. Come on Marcus, do you really expect me to believe that your motives are pure and innocent?

There are certain things that I would expect God to know, if I met Him, in the same way that I could verify the identity of my daughter from her memories of things only she and I would remember. If you could produce a Being who would actually answer me when I talked to him, and could demonstrate the knowledge that any reasonable person would expect God to have, then I see no reason why I shouldn’t accept that He exists.

Have you ever really tried talking to Him? …and been open to the possibility that you might get an answer? If your premise is that He does not exists, I find it hard to believe that you would be willing to do this sincerely.

As I pointed out before, language like “meeting God” and “produce a Being” might make sense in referring to an alien. But, with God those terms make no sense. Besides, in your current state of mind would is there really any scenario you could imagine wherein you would accept God’s existence if He appeared before you?

Whether He also has all the powers claimed for Him by His supporters would then be a matter of actual observation, rather than invention.

And there is plenty of evidence of God’s power. However, once again you are limiting the discussion to what you believe to be evidence of God. The Theist looks at the universe and sees God’s power all around. The Atheist attributes the characteristics of the natural world and the universe to chance physical and chemical interactions. The Theist looks at miracles that are credible and sees God’s intervention. The Atheist claims that there is a scientific explanation for everything (without, of course, having to produce the explanation). The Theist sees God’s action in answered prayer (even when the answer is no). The Atheist claims it’s all random. So there are observations to be made. But, those that are most relevent are rejected. It’s like a blind man demanding proof that light exists.

It is not the rejection of God, it is rejection of belief in the existence of God. If I believed that God existed I could then decide whether or not to reject Him. We aren’t past first base yet.

I agree. And we probably won’t ever get past first base as long as your premise is that God doesn’t exist. You see, you have the advantage in that you have set the rules of engagement by refusing to accept the possibility that God exists and asking me to prove He does exist. What if we changed the rules and started with the premise that God exists and the Bible is accurate. Now, prove to me that God does not exist. You would then be faced with the same handicap that I am. Based on my premise, I would reject any evidence that does not fit that premise. So, your task is impossible.

This is where most of my discussions with Atheists reach an impasse and why I don’t often participate in these exchanges any more.

I’m not sure how seriously you’ve considered the possibility that Catholics are correct. But, what if the Catholic Church was absolutely correct? Would you change the way you live in any way? For my part, I am at peace with the possibility that I die and there is nothing. I’ve considered the possibilities and examined the evidence many times in my life. If there is no God, I would not change anything. I am happy and fulfilled and I simply believe. If you feel the same way, then I’m happy for you and wish you well.

 

[davidv]

That God cannot be observed is certainly something I can agree with.

Not being observed is entirely consistent with his not existing.

It is also entirely consistent with a spiritual being

It’s also the simplest explanation for his non observed-ness.

Simple that is inaccurate is not the simplest explanation.

Why would anyone wish to dream up more complicated explanations?

It didn’t come from a dream.