http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-29/god-and-the-problem-of-sincere-disbelief/8378108
[I noticed CWB’s post picked up on some of these point while I was preparing mine]
I would respond to him personally (if I had a way to, versus how I would here) by first listening to his questions/concerns/"
problem" with his sincere disbelief to make sure I fully understood his core problems. Try to understand his reasons for his disbelief, first, before jumping to potentially wrong assumptions of his problem with it. Without some honest question/answer time, it is risky business assuming them. And frankly, the article isn't that informative with these answers to what the problem(s) is. He basically just says he stopped believing because of his girlfriend's “putting [him] down a path of questioning” god’s existence. Odd, really. Had he never questioned God’s existence before??? I also found the article poorly written, frankly. Not sure if he’s a professional writer or not, but the title is:
“
God and the problem of sincere disbelief”
Yet nowhere in the article is the “problem” defined. Nor God defined, for that matter. I get the impression, the guy is a very young writer and inexperienced writer. Indeed, inexperienced at very much life at all. Hopefully, he’s still growing and maturing.
I'd ask him why he thought his girlfriend’s disbelief was right, versus his initial belief. Maybe she's wrong and there is God. Why start down her path??? The article never really (clearly anyway) says his core reasons for disbelief (other than her putting him on a “path”). What “path”. What reasoning, evidence, signs, truths, etc. lead him to conclude there is no god??? I’ll list a few possible ‘reasons’ below from the article and comment.
From there (a better understanding of his reasoning), I would discuss with him how my path to sincere belief in God is similar to his “path” to sincere disbelief in God in that I’ve been influenced too. That is, assuming he could articulate his “path”. I had and continue to have influences upon by beliefs too. (It’s impossible not to) Some toward belief in God, some toward disbelief in God. So the real question is; which influences are right and which influences are wrong. And more to the point, why does he/me believe those influences are right (versus wrong). I could talk for days about why I think the influences toward belief in God are right. But, I’d listen to his reasons for why they are not and why his influences toward there being no God are right. (He just doesn’t really list any). But I can assure you, it would not be very influential upon me that his girlfriend has disbelief in God.
Note, I use "problems" with sincere disbelief because he does in the title. If he still sees his disbelief as a “problem”, then there's ... well problems with it. And there certainly are problems with it. Take, for example, his moral views. Does he believe in objective moral values??? If so, then where in the world of no god do objective (transcendent) moral values come from??? Many people (atheist and theists, and the Bible too) understand that transcendent moral values influence us from the outside. Tugging us to “know right from wrong”. Placing us smack dead center in a war of good versus evil. No way around it. (Apathy being the end of the “path” where there are no rights or wrongs in this world.
I’d suggest he listen to the following podcast and maybe do some more study on atheist’s reasoning. Read both sides (at least the best of both sides) and then determine who’s right and who’s wrong based on sound reasoning. He did mention WLC, so he’s at least looking around, I suppose. And WLC’s a good one, for sure. But if his top priority is to get along with his girlfriend’s path, then maybe he’d better just listen to her and not worry about who’s right and who’s wrong (Apathy). Hopefully, she’s worth the price, though.
Random comments of his that I’d discuss further with him:
- “the idea that there were people who had heard the Gospel and been left untouched by it was unfathomable to an evangelical kid like me.” Really?? I’ll take him at his word, but that’s certainly not my experience. I see people all the time that have heard the Gospel and couldn’t care less about it (one way or the other). They are concerned more about their girlfriend/boyfriend, entertainment, career, making more money for entertainment of their girlfriend/boyfriend, etc. than the Gospel. I call them Apathists. They really just have apathy toward the whole idea of God. But regardless of people who have heard the Gospel and are left untouched by it, so what? If other people are untouched by the Gospel, then what does that mean??? Is he supposed to be untouched by the Gospel too??? His path down that rabbit trail, seems out of place. Not to mention, that he’d better be sure he’s and they are hearing the true Gospel (I noticed he capitalized it).
- “my girlfriend showed me that there were unbelievers who hadn't turned their backs on God in an act of grand Freudian defiance, or shunned their creator in spite of what they know in their hearts and minds to be true.” This is what made me recall the following podcast and blogger Leah Libresco (atheist turned Christian). One of the worst (top ten) bad arguments that Christian apologist sometimes make is that Atheist cannot live moral lives. Hog wash. Some do, but not all. Some Christians live immorally, too. So??? Are we supposed to live like others, or live like Christ? Christ!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/stand-to-reason-weekly-podcast/id370282268?mt=2&i=1000383265501
- “Ultimately, it isn't a commitment to loving your neighbour or turning the other cheek that makes you a Christian. If it was, I'd still be one.” Ultimately (from my perspective) it’s Christ that makes us Christian, not our cheek turning. But, cheek turning is a part of the Christian life. I’m sure he and I could discuss this more.
- “Rather, being a Christian means having particular views about history and science” Really??? I’d disagree and discuss this with him, too. Being Christian (to me) means having certain views about who Christ is and ultimately (see 3) having the Spirit of Christ influencing us from the inside.
- “It always seemed unconscionable to me that someone could be denied salvation not because of a moral failing, but because they simply disagreed about the evidence for God.” “Could God really deny salvation to someone just because they're unconvinced by the historical basis for the resurrection?” etc. Again, people aren’t due salvation in the first place. It’s a gift. And it’s ultimately based on the Spirit of Christ’s influence upon you or not (not moral failings or disagreeing with evidences). Frankly, the guys seems very confused about salvation in the first place. I’m not convinced he moved from salvation to disbelief, since he not once mentions the Spirit of Christ living in him.
- “For them, no one who truly heard the story of Jesus Christ with an open heart could possibly respond in any other way than to recognise its truth.” Really??? Who thinks this way? I know a lot of people that have heard the story of Jesus Christ and have responded in many ways. Apathy, disdain, unconvinced, etc.
- “William Lane Craig, one of evangelical Christianity's leading contemporary thinkers, says God makes his presence known to "those who listen": "If you're sincerely seeking God, God will make his existence evident to you."” Yes, in many of his debates, (where the topic is the existence) he will close with this Biblical statements (Jesus’ and Paul’s). It’s accurate to the Text. But so??? Knowing God exists doesn’t save a single person. Even the Devil knows God exists. Anyway, the guy frankly, seems very confused on what saves a person (or not).
- “More and more, I came to realise that the unbelievers I'd come across hadn't rejected faith because they wanted to remain ignorant or they felt Christianity threatened their immoral lifestyles. Instead, they'd looked at the evidence and concluded it didn't add up.” Okay. But let’s look at this evidence(s). What, exactly, evidences is he talking about??? The fact that some Christians claim atheists cannot live moral lives??? Again, Leah looked at some of the ‘best’ evidences for the moral landscape (Sam Harris, for example) and concluded that transcendent moral values was evidence for God. She’s right. Sam’s wrong. I’ve seen zero (and I’ve looked) evidence that transcendent morals can exist apart from a moral law Giver.
- “It would take too long to explain what made me finally lose it.” Okay, but why write an article that never gets to the point???
- “Suffice to say, though, I didn't read Voltaire and Bertrand Russell and have the mud removed from my eyes in a moment of transcendent rational thinking.” LoL. Good. Because, exactly what would Russel’s valid logical atheistic argument/evidence be??? He never actually made one. Russel said; “I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.” “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon.” He was agnostic and presented no logical arguments for (or against) god. He sure did like the girls, though. And lots of them.
