Hi Everyone. Let me tell you about myself. I was until two weeks ago, a faithful Catholic. I believe just about everything the Church taught. Then I discovered the writer Christopher Hitchens, through a book of his that criticized Bill and Hillary Clinton.
I read his arguments against religion, and regret to say, that I was convinced to some degree. He basically said that" something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", that if people in the first century AD were as knowledgeable about the world as they were now the Church would never have taken off, That in the Bible God orders a lot of cruel and ruthless things, And that God is negligent since he is all powerful and all good but only gives “miraculous cures” to a select few individuals.
Im sad to say he convinced me for a time. Im only here to see how and if these arguments are wrong. Im not quite ready to give up on the Faith just yet.
H F
Wow, is that the
best he can do? And I thought he was a clever guy.
Seriously, there are far better arguments against Christianity or religion than those.
Very simply:
“something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
The presumption is that Christianity is asserted without evidence and, of course, the presumption is wrong. But let us grant it for the moment. Is the claim even true? I don’t think so. We assert lots of things without evidence that are true and taken to be true by others. For example, if you say to a friend, “I’m hungry”, he doesn’t have to listen to your bowels to believe you or not. Or if your wife says, “I love you”, you don’t need to put her on a polygraph. Furthermore, even things asserted without evidence
cannot be dismissed without evidence, since there should be a presumption of innocence on claims. So, for example, if I claimed to have a mystical experience and genuinely believed it, unless you had good evidence to believe others (I was mistaken because of X, Y and Z), there is no reason to prima facie dismiss my claim.
if people in the first century AD were as knowledgeable about the world as they were now the Church would never have taken off
All the people in the first century AD needed was to know the difference between a dead body and a living body. That’s it. I’m pretty sure they could figure out that Christ was pretty dead on the cross and just as dead when he was buried and, hey, when he appeared all those times, not so dead.
As for miracles, well, I’ve yet to see a scientist explain how five loaves and two fish multiply to feed five thousand, how a man walks on water, how the dead as raised, or how water turns instantly to wine. I don’t think we’re much the wiser today.
That in the Bible God orders a lot of cruel and ruthless things
If he means, for instance, the killing of Canaanites, a couple of points: (i) that text needs to be understood in context, that is, the primitive nature of the times, what was occurring, how warfare was fought, what the text is actually approving of, etc.; and (ii) God, as the sovereign of life, has the authority and moral right to take life away, in fact, he does it every second when someone dies, as Job declares: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return; the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” (Job 1:21, RSV)
And that God is negligent since he is all powerful and all good but only gives “miraculous cures” to a select few individuals.
Gee, he’s even a biblical ignoramus! I don’t think Christopher Hitchens actually understands the Incarnation and the purpose of Christ coming to us. He didn’t come as a miracle healer just to heal everyone, but rather for a special purpose: to redeem us and build the Church. Be that as it may, God
does continue to heal people today through miraculous cures. Lastly, there’s life (earthly life) and then,
there’s life (heavenly, eternal life). God is gifting us the latter through His love for us. I wish Mr Hitchens would have understood that and been a bit more open. He could have died a happier (i.e. more blessed) man.
God bless you.
). Atheism is tragic, there is nothing but death and decay and meaninglessness at the end. But most atheists today express no comprehension of the tragicness of this view. At least the atheists of the past understood the implications of their beliefs. They were thoughtful atheists. Today we seem to just have angry atheists (why?) and cocky atheists (why again?).
