Challenge: Tackle a British Atheist?

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Okay – I’ll attempt to step in. However, I, too, often find that life piles up on me and I have to slow down or take a breather in an email debate.

To date, all but one of my debate partners has been the one to quit – the exception is a debate in which I have not quit in my heart, but have so far done so in fact. It is one of my greatest guilts and I would appreciate all prayers that I return to it. It was also a newbie mistake: I allowed an SSPXer to present me with 6 hours of cassette-taped arguments. It took me a year just to transcribe! I’m about half-way through in making my reply (you’d better believe I’ll treat him to the same taped forum – although I won’t accept any tapes back; writing or nothing), but I haven’t worked on it in (forgive me, Lord) six years. When it’s done, I’ll have a book. I don’t even know if my last address on him is any good. Again, prayers there, please.

As to whom I’ve debated without quitting: Born-Agains, Church of Christers, lots of JWs, New Agers, American-style Buddhists, and yes, atheists.

My dad is a “scientific” atheist. He subscribes to both atheist and scientific journals. He’s a former Lutheran who left the faith for emotional reasons as a teenager; he believes that his introduction to science taught him that his decision was also logically correct. He used to love debating Christians because he always won. With me, he hears rebutals for the first time in his life, and suddenly doesn’t enjoy debate anymore.

Please know that I am quite ignorant of science. But with my debate strategy, that doesn’t really matter. I use what my mentor calls The Question Technique; it is Socratic method. It is especially useful for the “tough nuts” – the ones who have a blind faith in something and need to be brought to realize that they have not properly questioned their assumptions. As one or two other posters have mentioned already, the scientific arguments your atheist is making have nothing to do with whether or not God exists. He is sidetracking the discussion with irrelevent issues.

You are right in seeing that he must first be brought to see the possibility that God exists before going into the nature of God. But the same is true before going into the nature of evolution – the cart is before the horse; evolution cannot disprove God. First God, then Christ, then the Church – after that, there’s almost no need to discuss details: doing so can be personally satisfying but won’t shake one’s faith once the authority of the Catholic Church is accepted.

Your guy can quote all the complicated, technical sentences he likes, but with me, he’d better be prepared to answer in simple English this question: “Exactly how does that prove that there is no God?” It is not until he has addressed that question 1,000 or so times that something in him will begin to succumb to the facts, and he’ll have his moment of clarity: realization that he has no proof that there is no God. Then and only then will any arguments for the existence of God have a chance of convincing him.

Of course, most people choose to quit debate once they suspect that their self-image is in jeopardy. Luckily, he’s converted on one issue – that’s reason for hope that he’s about Truth, not self-reinforcement.

I probably won’t be able to go day-by-day with him. My method is one that doesn’t call for tons of research, but I have a very demanding life. If he has the patience to slow down now and then, I’ll stick with him. He can either do it privately through my email (feel free to pass it on – but let me know his so he doesn’t go into the Junk folder), or he can do it on the board here. If we do it on the board, I’ll only reply to him in the thread – anyone else who wishes to engage me will have to do so separately, otherwise things get too confusing and difficult.

I’d like to start out by simply asking him the following question: “What reason(s) do you have for holding that God does not exist?” If he feels that question misrepresents his position, I would encourage him to correct my misconception in his answer. If he has more than one reason for his position on God, I would insist that we take them one at a time and not move on to the next until we both agree that we have finished exploring the reason under debate (I’ve no patience with people who, rather than admit the reason is bad, attempt to deflect by moving on to something else). I gladly let him choose which reason he wishes to explore first, but I insist on one at a time. If he can’t do that, then I suppose I’m not the one God wants him to debate.

If he (or anyone) wants to know more about me, my conversion story is in the Sept. '04 issue of *This Rock *(Damascus Road: “The Real Thing”). Link: catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409dr.asp

God bless you and him!

In Christ,
Lisa Lavadores

 

[R_McGeddon]

but I don’t think you can say that “nobody knows for certain”.

Unless someone comes along with some solid, irrefutable, tangible evidence, then I can quite easily say nobody knows for certain.

Without evidence nothing is certain.

 

[Jedinovice]

Many thanks to everyone. I’m going to offer this thread to my collegue but please be aware that this my idea and it’s *his *choice. He may not be interested. If he does engage here, please treat him with respect and gentleness. He has been an EXCELLENT dialogue ‘opponent’ and worthy of serious intellectual respect. He has absolutely NOT played many of the games we see in discussion and he has been honest and true and respectful throughout. I would not even suggest this idea of I did not think he was hungry for discussion and genuine. I has genuinely been a privilege discussing with him and I wish I had unlimited time.

I’ll pitch the case to him. He may refuse and that is absolutely his right. Nevertheless, he’s a good bloke and I commend him to the house!

 

[Moneo]

[Continued]

Any takers? On the one hand it’s a challenge. Brits are, right now, among the most entrenched atheists in the world and they really do believe science has disproven God, period! He is tenacious and knows stuff (even if I think he can’t see the wood for the trees sometimes!) He will not be easily influenced and I think a very, large part of him wants to be an atheist and this will affect his perspective. I don’t think this is someone ready to be baptised at all! But, on the other hand, he has been fair, respectful, never dropped to bad debate tactics and he has allowed me room to move away from evolution for which I give him great credit. I have often sincerely complimented him on his fairness in discussion … He has certainly shown a real hunger for discussion and it’s real debate – that’s a rarity!

If this fellow is as intense as you suggest, I admit that I am a little reluctant to commit to anything as I don’t really have the time … on the other hand, what am I doing hanging around an Apologetics site if I am unwilling to engage someone like this in conversation?

I am not a scientist either, however, and will not be able to engage him in any meaningful way on specific points regarding the natural sciences.

But I do wish to add a few comments of my own for the benefit of the folks from the U.S. who might be willing to correspond with your friend.

What the OP says about the atheism of British society at this point is absolutely true. There is an enormous cultural gap between the U.S. and Britain in terms of the attitude that most people have toward the idea of faith and the issue of religious practice. They are two completely different paradigms, and all our cultural assumptions about religion and God flow from them.

For the vast majority of the English, religion simply doesn’t even appear on the radar. Saying that you believe the doctrines of orthodox Christianity is as bewildering as saying that you believe that Vulcans and Klingons really do exist. An American, if he or she doesn’t believe in God or practise any particular religion, does not think it at all strange or contradictory to encounter religious belief, even among educated professional people with successful careers. For a Brit, a university education and genuine religious belief seem genuinely incompatible. It is ultimately a rather naïve point of view IMHO, though they would not see it as such.

Also, it is generally not at all helpful to approach an Englishman on the basis of emotional appeals. Britons don’t relate to one another that way, and are certainly not effusive people in their interpersonal relationships. The Briton approaches the question of God with his head, not his gut. Emotional appeals will make you appear irrational and peraps a bit uneducated.

They are, however, a very polite people and follow very strict social norms when it comes to all kinds of social interaction, including debate. So, always deal with the point raised, do not detour to secondary or unrelated points and keep it as logical as you can. As long as you maintain the conversation on the intellectual plane, he or she will always listen very politely, respond rationally and almost never, ever be rude.

If you do not respond in kind however, all bets are off. Don’t get angy or emotional, and avoid irony at all costs. Beside the fact that you’ll have just invalidated any further efforts at evangelisation on your part, the English command of irony is formidable … a wonder to behold. No matter how good you *think *you are at irony, you don’t want to find yourself in a verbal fencing match with the rapier champion of East Hull. Englishmen, especially if they are northerners, can strike you dead from twenty paces away with a single blow of the tongue.

I don’t want to exaggerate things, but all I’m attempting to say is that there are enormous differences in the way people from the U.S. and Britain understand the world and in the way they interact with one another. Anyone who wishes to engage this fellow in any sustained conversation will have to be very patient, very polite and well-prepared.

 

[Jedinovice]

If this fellow is as intense as you suggest, I admit that I am a little reluctant to commit to anything as I don’t really have the time … on the other hand, what am I doing hanging around an Apologetics site if I am unwilling to engage someone like this in conversation?

I am not a scientist either, however, and will not be able to engage him in any meaningful way on specific points regarding the natural sciences.

But I do wish to add a few comments of my own for the benefit of the folks from the U.S. who might be willing to correspond with your friend.

What the OP says about the atheism of British society at this point is absolutely true. There is an enormous cultural gap between the U.S. and Britain in terms of the attitude that most people have toward the idea of faith and the issue of religious practice. They are two completely different paradigms, and all our cultural assumptions about religion and God flow from them.

For the vast majority of the English, religion simply doesn’t even appear on the radar. Saying that you believe the doctrines of orthodox Christianity is as bewildering as saying that you believe that Vulcans and Klingons really do exist. An American, if he or she doesn’t believe in God or practise any particular religion, does not think it at all strange or contradictory to encounter religious belief, even among educated professional people with successful careers. For a Brit, a university education and genuine religious belief seem genuinely incompatible. It is ultimately a rather naïve point of view IMHO, though they would not see it as such.

Also, it is generally not at all helpful to approach an Englishman on the basis of emotional appeals. Britons don’t relate to one another that way, and are certainly not effusive people in their interpersonal relationships. The Briton approaches the question of God with his head, not his gut. Emotional appeals will make you appear irrational and peraps a bit uneducated.

They are, however, a very polite people and follow very strict social norms when it comes to all kinds of social interaction, including debate. So, always deal with the point raised, do not detour to secondary or unrelated points and keep it as logical as you can. As long as you maintain the conversation on the intellectual plane, he or she will always listen very politely, respond rationally and almost never, ever be rude.

If you do not respond in kind however, all bets are off. Don’t get angy or emotional, and avoid irony at all costs. Beside the fact that you’ll have just invalidated any further efforts at evangelisation on your part, the English command of irony is formidable … a wonder to behold. No matter how good you *think *you are at irony, you don’t want to find yourself in a verbal fencing match with the rapier champion of East Hull. Englishmen, especially if they are northerners, can strike you dead from twenty paces away with a single blow of the tongue.

I don’t want to exaggerate things, but all I’m attempting to say is that there are enormous differences in the way people from the U.S. and Britain understand the world and in the way they interact with one another. Anyone who wishes to engage this fellow in any sustained conversation will have to be very patient, very polite and well-prepared.

^^^^ Absolutely! You get it!!! That is 100% correct.

Especially the belief in the irrationality of religion. In the US (I gather) it’s the extremist who think religion is irrational. In the UK it is the norm, it is orthodoxy. The taxi driver to the Member ot Parliament to the Univeristy Don think religion=mental illness.

Th every first principles, the most basic assumptions of religion, are all seen as weird, mad, crazy! You have to be VERY patient to work through a lot of boiler plate which is believed sincerely and without malice

Thanks Moneo, you understand us! I probably only ‘escaped’ due to miraculous intervention. But that’s for the book!

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Please know that I am always polite, always assume sincerity on the part of my opponent, and do not respond in kind if he insults me (I have a thick skin). If I feel myself getting emotional, I sit on my reply until I can respond with logic.

Although I do insist on sticking to the point, I am patient about seeing it happen. I simply explain why I won’t respond to arguments/charges that are off topic.

I tend to be direct, which some take as arrogance, but I am quick to re-phrase if I see that I have inadvertantly rankled my debate partner. I believe in apologizes and am quick to make them.

Those who have cut off debate with me have not done so because I was rude but because I wouldn’t let them wander away from the topic. They could not bring themselves to either further explain why their argument was correct or admit that it was flawed. I understand that. The Old Me used to like always being right. The New Me enjoys being proved wrong because my desire is Truth and finding that I have held an incorrect posistion brings me closer to Truth. It sounds like your atheist is like the New Me – and it would be a treat to dialogue with someone like that (as long as he’s only like the New Me in the search for Truth, not in some of my other lazy, annoying habits!)

Plus, I love the British (I’m a big Agatha Christie fan)! And I understand that mindset towards God; I held it myself for quite some time.

In Christ,
Lisa

 

[JimO]

Unless someone comes along with some solid, irrefutable, tangible evidence, then I can quite easily say nobody knows for certain.

Without evidence nothing is certain.

Well, what kind of evidence will you accept? Will you accept paranormal evidence? Will you accept the paranormal experiences of other persons? Will you accept the first-hand accounts of paranormal occurances from others? My guess is that you will not accept any of these and therein lies the problem of bridging the world of physical science and philosophy/religion. That is why there cannot be a meaningful argument over the existence of God in a strictly scientifically framed discussion. Nor can there be a meaningful evaluation of the miraculous/paranormal.

Just as the faculty that we use to evaluate scientific principles is our intellect, the faculty that we use to experience the paranormal, or God, is what we call faith. One must engage the whole person (body, intellect, will, emotions, and spirit - all in a balanced fashion - this is faith) to engage God. As Pascal said, the mind is a dead end when it comes to understanding God. Our minds alone are limited and we were not intended to engage God solely with our minds. Thus, when someone asks that we prove that God, or the soul, or the afterlife exists, using only our minds or scientific principles, it’s like a blind man demanding that you prove that light exists. He doesn’t engage with the proper faculty.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Many thanks to everyone. I’m going to offer this thread to my collegue but please be aware that this my idea and it’s *his *choice. He may not be interested. If he does engage here, please treat him with respect and gentleness. He has been an EXCELLENT dialogue ‘opponent’ and worthy of serious intellectual respect. He has absolutely NOT played many of the games we see in discussion and he has been honest and true and respectful throughout. I would not even suggest this idea of I did not think he was hungry for discussion and genuine. I has genuinely been a privilege discussing with him and I wish I had unlimited time.

I’ll pitch the case to him. He may refuse and that is absolutely his right. Nevertheless, he’s a good bloke and I commend him to the house!

I’ve also written a refutation of Dawkins’ book. It’s available in the same place as my earlier book, 12 Common Atheist Arguemnts (refuted).

What I tend to find with atheists is that superficially their reasons are very rational. They are happy to tell you about various logical fallacies, problems with Anslem’s ontological arguemnt, and the like. However it is only superficial. For instance, they regularly assert that my book must be rubbish, without actually reading it. So I ask them if they can give an example of a weak argument for atheism. Almost always, they cannot cope with this little intellectual exercise. Instead you get bluster, and wilder and wilder accusations, and you pretty soon realise that you are not, in fact, dealing with someone whose motivations are rational at all.

Your friend might be an exception to this general rule. However don’t be surprised if he is in fact roleplaying the man of reason, a mask he has to drop as soon as those rationalisations come under serious attack.

 

[Jedinovice]

I’ve also written a refutation of Dawkins’ book. It’s available in the same place as my earlier book, 12 Common Atheist Arguemnts (refuted).

What I tend to find with atheists is that superficially their reasons are very rational. They are happy to tell you about various logical fallacies, problems with Anslem’s ontological arguemnt, and the like. However it is only superficial. For instance, they regularly assert that my book must be rubbish, without actually reading it. So I ask them if they can give an example of a weak argument for atheism. Almost always, they cannot cope with this little intellectual exercise. Instead you get bluster, and wilder and wilder accusations, and you pretty soon realise that you are not, in fact, dealing with someone whose motivations are rational at all.

Your friend might be an exception to this general rule. However don’t be surprised if he is in fact roleplaying the man of reason, a mask he has to drop as soon as those rationalisations come under serious attack.

Look, we’re talking about atheists in general, we atlking about an individual who will probably be reading this post as I type! Let’s not assume odd motivations or second guess. He posted points that were, frankly, beyond my ability to respond to at this point. He was/is perfectly willing to move away from evolutionary theory onto my positive case for God.

Please, you don;t often get the chance to engage in real, proper, respectful dialogue these days and it’s because he’s been so good that I feel bad about not being able to respond at the level he recently emailed me at and because me time (not yet!) will dissipate. Please, discussion about the operation of non-theists can take place elsewhere. I’m asking for potential help from individuals. It might be a private email affair rather than discussion forum, just so the poor guy isn’t accosted by sixteen Catholics, some one whom may well impugne his motives.

He’s been a first rate intellectual opponent and he has earned my respect - seriously. Please, please, let’s help engage with him where he is at with what he feels he needs if he thinks coming here might be useful. Don’t prejudge him, that’s not on! I think it’s a culture thing but statements like the above will be more offensive to Brits than Americans I’m sure. Be welcoming or at least dispassionate, please! Even the word ‘attack’ is wrong. This is discussion, not war, engagement, not brow beating. It took me thre years to find God, one as an agnostic/atheist, and another year more recently to become fully Catholic. I know what it is to struggle and need to discuss without being charged into.

Now I’m going to start work on the moral argument for God for my colleague.

Many thanks and please, I’m asking for specific help me and someone deserving of proper engagement, probably at private email level. I ask that discussions about the nature of such debates in general are carried out elsewhere!

 

[FCEGM]

Many thanks and please, I’m asking for specific help me and someone deserving of proper engagement, probably at private email level. I ask that discussions about the nature of such debates in general are carried out elsewhere!

Your friend might be interested in the writings of Fr. Stanley Jaki, O.S.B; Fr. Jaki has written extensively on science and religion:

pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/sep1992p9_762.html

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2001-02/article3.html

Also, to assist you in your own discussion with your friend, Fr. Thomas Dubay’s Faith and Certitude (Ignatius Press), might be a good help:

amazon.com/Faith-Certitude-Thomas-Dubay/dp/089870054X

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Last plug for his engaging me – he is free to present all the scientific arguments he wishes. Just because I am ignorant does not mean I’m unwilling to learn. However, I will request that he be able to explain how they prove there is no God in lay terms. If he truly understands the arguments, he should be able to dumb them down.

Also, as to what you have done yourself with him so far – take heart! Just getting him to realize that Christians are not idiots is a huge step. And any positive arguments you’ve made that he has rejected should not be considered lost. My mentor’s wife taught me something that should be self-evident but wasn’t to me: the teaching moment is not always the learning moment. In other words, we have all experienced strongly disagreeing with something someone has said, only to find that days, even years, later we end up agreeing with it.