When We Testify To Athiests Where do We Christians Go Wrong?
Christians and Atheists never seem to get along when the subject of Christianity come up. I know many Christians and I know my share of Atheists. There are good and bad in both groups so the general nature of Atheists and Christians is not the culprit. Why then, are two seemingly decent groups of people always at each other’s throats in this subject? This is the question I look to answer in this article.
Being a Christian myself, I have long been troubled by this dilemma. Atheists have come into and out of my life and some were quite good friends. I have known Atheists that are completely about being right, and logical debate was an excuse to hear themselves think out loud. On the other hand, I have known plenty of Christians that do the same.
If we throw out this group of Atheists and Christians, and deal simply with those that are logical, then the problem begins to come a bit clearer. <a href=”“>To continue reading click here
To continue reading… yes?
phi zeroth
May 15, 2008
One thing I have come across is that there is a dissagreement between Christians and Atheists on the fundamental nature of humanity.
1) Christians tend to think that humans are fundamentally corrupt, and are helpless to do anything about it without a leg up from God.
The opinions of Athiests will vary hugely – there is no central doctrine, after all. But their opinion on the nature of humanity will usually lie between two positions.
2) Humans are fundamentally corrupt, and we are capable of overcoming this.
3) Humans are fundamentally noble, but we screw up from time to time. We are capable of overcoming our tendency to stuff up.
There’s a lot of reasoning to all these points – I’m not wanting to go into it here.
I’m in camp 3. So when a Christian comes to testify to me about God, essentially it amounts to that Christian telling me that I’m not corrupt when I know (or at least think) I am noble, and then telling me I’m helpless when I know (or at least think) that I have ability.
It won’t be that overt – but it tends to be the subtext. The feeling I get as an atheist when speaking to a Christian is that the christian is accusing me of being corrupt down to my very soul because I don’t think the same way he does. This strikes us as groundless, and so we get upset.
That’s one of the main reasons that Atheists get so angry at Christians – and vice versa, I’ve found. I’m not sure why, but in my personal experience Christians tend to get very offended when I try and convince them that they’re inherently noble beings.
So Christians and athiests upset eachother, get pissed off, then upset eachother even more. And so the fruitless cycle continues.
Hope this is the kind of dialogue you were looking for.
Ubiquitous Che
May 15, 2008
Sorry about the broken link. It is now fixed.
zuniac
May 15, 2008
Ub Chi….. Oddly, we agree to a point on many of your thoughts there. I do feel, however, that it is far from that simple. I have gotten the link fixed, so please read the rest and tell me what you think. I feel like we are not that far apart on our opinions. (even though our beliefs are very different)
zuniac
May 15, 2008
You’re right, of course – there’s a lot more going on than just the ideas I wrote about, and even the ideas I wrote about have more to them than I covered.
I’m glad to know we’re not so far apart on our opinions.
One of the weird things that I’m coming across in the atheist/theist discussion is that there’s a set of side issues that come up that run at a perpendicular angle to the original discussion.
So even if two people disagree strongly on the subject of God (or whatever), it’s interesting to see where they stand on the coexistence front.
For example – are relgion and science mutually exclusive?
Personally, I don’t think they are – someone can accept biology (including evolution), physics and chemistry are all best performed and understood without reference to God, but still believe that these three things are ultimately just God’s worktools. It’s as if we’re all just God’s sneaky kids that found the key to daddy’s toolbox and started carving wooden toys for one another. Now, I would disagree with this person – but I concede that it’s a fair position to adopt.
There are many atheists who would not accept this person’s position – and interestingly, there are also some (not many, but some) biblical literalists that wouldn’t accept such a position either.
I know I’m not really moving the conversation forward very much. Just rambling about something I find to be interesting.
Ubiquitous Che
May 15, 2008
*Personally, I think they’re not mually exclusive – someone can accept
Silly me. That was an unfortunate typo. I changed tenses when I was typing and forgot to edit out the initial clause. Silly me.
Ubiquitous Che
May 15, 2008
To me, all things are possible because God is God. I know that is so simplistic but such is the nature of true belief in God.
The one wild card that most Atheists can not seem to understand is the spiritual revelations one experiences when they find God. If one does experience these things, then they certainly would know where the Christian is coming from.
The problem is, most Christians feel that judgment is the way. Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. I think that if one is open to the testimony, then they will seek it. If they are not, then they are not going to change because of your words.
Every person has free will, and should be allowed that freedom and respect. Just my thought and opinions. Thanks for the intelligent discussion!
zuniac
May 15, 2008
Ever talked about this with a lay Zen Buddhist?
I’ve given Zen a go. Zen has the same kind of spiritual revelations in it that you’re talking about sans deity.
And a lot of atheists lay claim to moments of transcendence – awe, wonder, and oneness with nature – and feel no need to ascribe these things to any particular religion at all. Just overwhelming awe at the majesty of the cosmos.
So I have to disagree with you. Christians are intitled to their interpretations, but they have no monopoly on transcendant spiritual experiences. Even atheists get to have those.
Remember – I’m going for consensus here, not discord.
Ubiquitous Che
May 15, 2008
Hence, the free will. lol — I make no claims of monopoly over anything. I do believe that there is a big difference between what you describe and what I am referring to, but that is only an opinion.
Certainly, I believe that one can experience spiritual revelations of many types.
The one I refer to is specific to God.
The others are not wrong, only different.
I should also mention that I am hesitant to ascribe anything to religion. I agree that religion is of man. It is our “take” on God’s plans for us in a large way.
This is the largest misconception in my eyes. I feel that the churches of the world have largely corrupted the message rather than deliver it.
My experience with God is not based on Church. It is based on my own walk with him.
Some churches are wonderful, and are needed. Many fall very short. This is truly a shame in my estimation.
zuniac
May 15, 2008
Hmm… That reminds me.
I remember that a long time ago I read an article written by a former Catholic priest. He’d turned away from the Vatican because of the whole exclusion thing.
He’d been going around England trying to preach the idea of having a personal relationship with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that didn’t require a church as a go-between. His idea was that God was everywhere and all-powerful, and as such He wasn’t limited to mortal intervention on His behalf. In his view (struggling to remember the priest’s name) a church should basically be a support group for believers, but the believers themselves should seek a direct relationship with the divine and shouldn’t be required to intereact with God purely through a priest.
Part of his idea was that since God knew everything, if we had sinned and repented, God would know. So people could essentially perform the sacrament of Reconcilliation for themselves, based purely on their private relationship with God and the strength of their regret and repentance. In this context, the role of the church was just to provide reassurance and guidance. The power to forgive sin resides fully in the grace of God, and not His earthly representatives.
I remember this, because this former catholic priest was barred from every Catholic and Protestant church in England for preaching against the values of the Church. Essentially, the churches wanted to retain a monopoly on the abilty to dispense God’s forgiveness of sins.
At the end of the article he predicted that if the Churches of God were willing to close the door to the word of God out of spite against something that wasn’t interpreted according to their earthly preferences, that the days of faith in religion were numbered – and he feared that this would be mirrored with a reduction of faith in God.
It was an interesting article. It was in one of those really old magazines where people would write their own articles and send them in to the editor. I read it about ten years ago in a doctor’s waiting room, and I think the magazine was about 10 years old itself.
I’m struggling to remember the name of the priest… I just can’t remember it. Still, it was interesting – and slightly prophetic, perhaps.
Ubiquitous Che
May 15, 2008
I’m buying the growing evidence that spiritual experiences can be accounted for as neuroscientific and psychological phenomena, but this is an aside.
I could (and perhaps will at some point) devise a complete list of hindrances to decent Christian-nontheist discussion, but I think the main problem boils down to not meeting on common ground.
I think the author of this article is mistaken to say that “the Atheist has no idea what is actually in the Christians heart” is one of the greatest problems. Though some atheists can be closed-minded and belligerent toward Christians, most understand the Christians’ concern, namely, eternity. In my experience from my own discussions and the discussions of others, the Christian is much more likely to be closed-minded and belligerent. Most nontheists I know welcome and enjoy decent, rational conversation, but will balk at perceived irrationality and ignorance, which brings me to the main problem I mentioned before.
Too often, Christians and atheists can’t meet on common ground for discussion. The Christian tends to fire off scriptural verses and make references to things the atheist already dismisses as invalid. The Christian also uses language that is meaningful among Christians but meaningless to the atheist, such as “eternal salvation,” “soul,” “sin,” “heaven/hell,” “Satan,” “Jesus died for you,” “I know Jesus lives in my heart,” “The Bible says,” etc. This provides no common ground for discussion and alienates the atheist. The atheist is a rational beast, and must be approached in kind.
Examples of common ground include:
• The grounds for authority of the Bible — Are there errors, inconsistencies, inaccuracies?
• Rational arguments for/against God
• Ethics and accountability
• Comparative religion: Why Christianity?
I also think the author of that article is mistaken in using, in his second point, the analogy of a helpless, unwitting person (the atheist) sitting on the train tracks of eternal doom, in desperate need of a concerned individual to swoop in and save them. To the atheist, there is no train, and no need of salvation, and the equivalent analogy is that of a person minding his own business and having someone frantically pushing and shoving him about to save him from a completely imaginary danger. This “I’m here to rescue you” attitude turns the atheist off quickly, amusing him, at best, or offending him.
I’ll conclude this ramble with two suggestions for Christians getting involved in discussion with atheists:
• Show genuine interest in the nontheist’s particular worldview and opinions, instead of simply bombarding them with your own. Atheists are proud folk, and typically do enjoy voicing their views, and appreciate those who understand and listen to them, and will welcome discussion thereof.
• Break the stereotype. Many atheists have a stereotypical view of Christians: willfully ignorant, irrational, judgmental, hypocritical. For many atheists, the Christian who can demonstrate knowledge, reason, wisdom, genuineness, fairness, and peacefulness can make a strong impression and bypass many barriers.
phi zeroth
May 17, 2008
Phi zeroth — You certainly make some very valid points. I will not argue the fact that common ground is one of the biggest barriers. The one thing that stands out to me about your comment, however, is that you seem to be suggesting that only the Atheist should be listened to and only on the Atheist’s terms. This alienates the Christian the same way that Atheists are alienated when Christians use “meaningless” terminology of Christian speak. As far as the analogy I used of the train, I made it very clear that this was from the Christians point of view. I did not intend it to be from the Atheists point of view. (the point, that is)
To a Christian, that is how we sometimes feel. This is not a bad thing, I might add. It is good to care about your fellow man, regardless of the reason.
One final note. My comment about an Atheist not understanding is a comment of experience. To experience a true connection with the Lord is unique unto itself. If you have not experienced it, then you could not possibly understand it just as the “clarity” that Atheists speak of is unique to their beliefs. That is not speaking ill of anyone, rather, stating a fact. Every experience is different and holds different meaning. This does not mean that Atheists are lacking in anything except perceived Godly awareness to the Christian.
Fantastic reply I might add, and a wonderful addition to my blog. This is the type of conversations I hoped for. Thanks!
zuniac
May 17, 2008