The Skeptics Canon (A Believers Attempt to Find Common Ground)

Stop me if you've heard this one. Two cartoon characters are entrenched in a debate about the origins of their existence. One character insists there is no creator. He picks up a rock and looks under, nothing. He looks to the heavens, nothing. He yells at the top of his lungs "HELLO!", just echoes. At this point, he looks at the other character and demands signs of design. Now the character who believes they were created points to a flower and highlights its intricacies. He points to the heavens and says, "Just look. It's right in front of your nose." He explains that the entire scope of their existence points to a designer.

From the outside looking in it is quite obvious that they were created. The viewer observes within the landscape the specific characteristics of each creature and the artist's personification over his creation. As a religious believer, on more than one occasion, I have debated to exhaustion this exact same idea to look at the wonder of creation and still deny the Fingerprints. At this point, it should go without saying that this anecdote is an oversimplification of this argument. Though the believer can strongly identify with the frustrations that must be felt by his protagonist, it is still important to remember that the non-believer in most cases did not come to his or her conclusion without a lot of soul searching. In fact, it has been my experience that the average atheist can very quickly dismantle an argument and generally confound a believer without much effort strictly on the premise that he or she has spent some time thinking this stance through.

Before proceeding, let me invite you to spend some time in reflection on the faith while attempting to understand the it's theology. From there, here are some rules I try to stick to when engaged in a discussion about God with an atheist.

Take Nothing for Granted

When a Catholic and a Baptist engage in a discussion about beliefs, it is not only worthwhile to have a strong grasp on scripture but also necessary. In this scenario two people are approaching each other from two separate traditions, but who both have in common a belief in the Bible as an authority. When having a discussion with an atheist, using scripture as a foundation for your argument is like taking a bible to a gun fight. They will not only swiftly mock your groundwork with assertions that they are too sophisticated for Bronze aged deities, And will quote Old Testament scriptures in an effort to discredit it, one I see often is, 2 Kings 2:23-24, its about children being attacked by bears for mocking Elisha (this scripture, as many others taken out of context by believers and non-believers alike are much more understandable and often completely different than the user's intent when considering the context with which they are written). Though directly quoting scripture tends to be fruitless in this case it is still important to understand its real world implications. Or, as GK Chesterton explained, "If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." In other words, there are timeless truths that scripture conveys and man will never be too refined to be held accountable. To sum up, when engaged with an atheist it is important to understand he or she must be approached with concrete examples of why religion matters. And that none of us are beyond its relevance. Which brings me to my next point.

Dogma is Not Exclusive to Religion

We all believe in something. I have often observed religious like fervor for political candidates, or celebrities. Some people will simultaneously suggest they have no God sized hole then worship at the altar of wealth, health, power, or self. As disconnected as we may feel from Moses' followers worshipping a golden calf, it still happens. Today's idols just happen to be more relevant to our place in history. But regardless of the era, it is important to guide the non-believer to the understanding that Moses and the story of Exodus speaks to a human condition that reaches beyond time and is embedded in our hearts. Now without fail, in conversation, I can expect to hear certain atheist doctrines (and I emphasize the word doctrine). For instance, "I am too sophisticated for your fairy tales.", "I know how to be a good citizen without the fear of Zeus.", or "The afterlife is just a human construct for social engineering." These statements are inevitably moving towards the point of his supposed earth shattering, double checkmate claim; while reciting his own creed; that he no longer needs religion because, of course, science. But, alas;

Science is Not a Belief System

The newer strain of atheism understands the importance of its adherents to have something to believe in. For instance, here is one of my favorite quotes from the new religion. Also, consider the religious like fervor surrounding Darwinian evolution. Considering the deliberate attempts of the prophets of scientism to exclude Catholics from participation in discussions about evolution, would any other scenario end without them being labeled fundamentalist? So in this context it is not a leap to see how science, though formerly existed as a method of discovery, has been ordained to golden calf status.

To be clear I think science, classically understood, is a wonderful discipline. If you want to understand how gravity works, you're a physics class away. If your passion is understanding the intricacies of the human heart then biology is a great place to start. How old is the planet? Look up a geology course. These studies have undoubtedly improved our quality of life. But when it comes to the question of people doing evil things or the nature of being, a scientist is as useful as a theologian would be in brain surgery. To blur the lines between science and faith, a common atheist declaration is the only god that has ever existed is the god of the gaps. His assertion is there is nothing inexplicable today that science will not explain at some point in the future. In short, he's saying there are no omnipotent beings yet, but with the help of science there will be one day. This is the fountain of youth of the twenty-first century. And we should be willing to call it what is, mythology.

Of all the rich tradition in Christian history, and there is a deep well to dip, we have our contributors in the field of science, the Big Bang Theory, the orbit of the earth, and the understanding of gravity are just a few of the contributions from devoted Christians. It is far from being anti-science as evidenced here, here, and here. Nor is atheism a prerequisite for belief in the truths of science. My point is, it's next to impossible to throw a rock through human history without hitting Christians who's beliefs made them good scientists and that has not changed.

The Big, Bad, Evil World

Now it has been established that we all have hearts, livers, brains, and religious beliefs. And since his ace up the sleeve (Science!) was shown to be a two (and it makes for a very weak religion) you find God being held accountable for all the world's injustice and suffering. These may be the toughest accusations to reconcile as a religious believer simply because it's important to recognize that no one has a simple answer for the problem of evil in the world. And to pile on, a Christian runs the risk of losing all credibility in the discussion if he at all comes off as indifferent or suggests that any individual's suffering, other than his own, may be the work of providence. Despite this, Christianity has a very well developed theology for the problem of evil in the world. Basically this boils down to the idea that when bad things happen, and one's cross is accepted with humility, there is an opportunity for transcendence. And suddenly the opposites of love and suffering are mysteriously intertwined. Robert Spitzer S.J. said in a recent interview, "Love and suffering are not incompatible, many times suffering leads us to love; suffering frees us from our narcissism." This very reason may be why people who aren't suffering tend to have a much bigger problem with its nature than do the people who are in the midst of their most difficult times. Ultimately, in the end, it's important to emphasize that you do not have all the answers to life's most difficult questions, but the problem of evil in the world is no good reason to suggest there is no God or even that God doesn't care. It only means, as a Christian it is our duty to share the light in other's darker times and to recognize that to be a Christian means we accept that we will experience suffering, but it will not be alone.

Zeus and the Bronze Aged Deities

The accusation is often made that Christianity has wore out its welcome and needs to fade by way of Zeus. This idea is borne more of ignorance of the history of Christianity and a lack of understanding of the claims of the Gospel than any real connection to Greek mythology. The half baked suggestion is rooted in the mistaken understanding that since Mount Olympus and the gods that inhabited it were silly, then so must be all religions. And therefore these religions must perish by way of Prometheus and Athena, etc... Even in our creed, we acknowledge that man previously grappled with the idea of multiple gods, but there was an unveiling throughout time of the One True God. And then eventually the unveiling of the Triune God through the Resurrection. And it's all right there in the Apostle's Creed very easily taken for granted. As a Christian, it is oft repeated and over the years accepted with minimal thought. This can be a trap when attempting to share the unique, non-licentious, non-conniving, not narcissistic, filandering, warmongering or any of the above characteristics of very contrived, very human Greek gods and goddesses, but the revolutionary claim of the Gospel. That God shared Himself as a Sacrifice for all mankind and to lose yourself for the sake of Christ, you will be found. This is still the case despite modern man's self proclaimed unique sophistication. We are the same broken, sinful creatures as our ancestors and the same Gospel is as relevant no matter the era. God may have revealed Himself to Abraham and Moses then later to Peter, Paul, and the other disciples in a previous age, but the same God continues to reveal Himself whether it's the Bronze age, Industrial age, or the Information age. Still understanding why the Resurrection was not understood as an allegory, a mythology, or a fairy tale by any preceding generation of Christian is important. For instance, in the first century Jewish world the scandal of a mere man being crucified for blasphemy would be enough to bury the story in the annals of history, unless a world changing event followed. Or that a woman of that era would be the first witness to the Resurrection (an idea so disgraceful that many of the Church Fathers chose reproach above reconciliation.) Nor would the Disciples, among other martyrs, have been so willing to die over a fib that spread like fire which the Romans were intent to extinguish. These are only a handful of examples of why the Resurrection is many things to many people, but a fairy tale is not one.

Quacks Like a Duck

One of my father's favorite expressions has always been if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. I prefer, if he quotes scripture (no matter how contrived), and follows canon law, he must be dogmatic. Or, to quote GK Chesterton, "In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it." And step by step, brick by brick, I attempt to dismantle his argument by first focusing on the idea that we are all religious creatures and then explaining how mine is not a religion of golden cows or man made myths. By establishing that simple reality, I am then able to ask "Now that we can agree that you too have religion would you like to hear the Good News?"