Reverend Dan Erickson is the Senior Pastor at Chisholm Baptist Church, in Hibbing, Minnesota, and he recently wrote an article for the Daily Tribune titled "It's Not Easy To Be An Atheist".
I'll go through the article in fine detail and leave my comments in red. It's going to take a long time and I don't expect anyone to read all the way to the finish, but I just want to get it all on the record so to speak (because it amuses me).
IT’S NOT EASY TO BE AN ATHEIST
Posted: Saturday, August 8, 2015 6:00 am
In his book, “When God Goes to Starbucks,” Paul Coppan notes that there is plenty of evidence we, as human beings, have a disposition to believe in some type of deity or spiritual reality. Thus, he says, if someone wants to overcome this predisposition to believe in God and be an atheist, it may be necessary to make some intentional choices in order to avoid being a “default theist.”
Erickson begins with the claim that "there is plenty of evidence" for what he is about to say - and then fails to produce any evidence! He just makes the statement and expects everyone to believe him.He goes on to say that humans "have a disposition to believe in some type of deity" and seems to be implying that if we have such a disposition then that belief must be true and therefore god exists! As it happens we humans also have (until we get an education) a disposition to believe that the sun moves around the earth. A disposition toward a belief says nothing about the truth of that belief.Erickson also says that humans default to theism and therefore an atheist is required to struggle against this natural tendency to believe in god and make a conscious decision not to believe. Well that doesn't apply to me. I default to atheism. I have never been religious. I went to church for eight years starting at age four, and on the way home after Sunday School I used to explain to the other kids why I thought the lesson we had just heard was complete and utter bullshit.
First, the aspiring atheist should sequester him/herself in urban settings and avoid the majesty, power and beauty of nature.
I already know where this is going. It usually finishes up with some banal statement like, "If you want see god, look at the sunset," or, "You can see god in a baby's smile." Poetic perhaps, but nothing more than that.
Remember too, that unlike the words of that famous hymn, it is not always a case of "all things bright and beautiful". Sometimes the majesty and power of nature results in something that is not easily described as beautiful. (Consider the final thoughts of the people who were trapped in those cars when the tsunami hit.)
My point is that Erickson wants to claim all the good things for god. He wants to attract new members to his cult by offering them majestic gifts of natural beauty while denying that god would ever allow bad things to happen.
The Bible says, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the skies display his craftsmanship.”
The Bible also says that if you don't give glory to god he will smear shit all over your face! (Malachi 2:2-3 KJV)
One may “understand” that the “northern lights” which seem to be dancing across the sky on a clear night are the result of solar activity, but when actually viewing them, it is hard to avoid the thought that they point to something far more magnificent than our sun. Mountains, lakes, streams, trees and wild flowers all have ways of planting questions in an atheist’s mind: Is everything merely a cosmic accident? Could this all have “just happened?” Or, is there an “intelligent designer” behind the marvelous phenomena of nature? Those type of questions challenge atheistic “faith.”
In the first sentence of this paragraph, Erickson agrees that the Northern Lights are the result of solar activity, but (he says) they look even more magnificent than the sun. He implies that sun couldn't produce such a display on its own and therefore the additional magnificence must come from god. It's like saying my son is better looking than I am so he couldn't have got his good looks from me; they must have come from god!
Then Erickson sets up a false dichotomy: He asks the atheist to explain the universe, time, and everything - and if the answers are not forthcoming then (according to Erickson) the only other alternative is 'god did it'.
Erickson is also using a god of the gaps argument. He asks atheists questions about the universe and accepts all of their answers until they finally admit that there is something they don't know or cannot explain. And that's when he jumps in to declare that atheism hasn't got the answer so that's the bit that god did. In effect, as Isaac Asimov once said, the god of the gaps argument reduces god to nothing more than a three letter word meaning "I don't know".
And finally, despite Erickson's claims to the contrary, there is no such thing as atheistic faith. When it comes to god, the atheists are lacking in faith. The believer has faith in god's existence while the atheist does not have that faith; that's what makes him an atheist; a lack of faith.
Second, someone who does not want to believe in God should avoid spending time with religious believers and taking their experiences seriously. Human beings have vivid imaginations. The fact someone claims to have an encounter with God, doesn’t mean it actually happened. However, when people living at many different times and in many different places all report a similar experience, intellectual honesty requires investigation of those reports. A plausible alternative explanation needs to be identified to these being genuine God encounters. If that does not seem feasible, ignoring people who claim to have had those experiences may be an atheist’s safest choice.
I live in Australia where nearly 80% of the population believes in god. Asking me to avoid those people is just plain silly. Erickson knows that of course. He's just being sarcastic.
Furthermore, I cannot help but take religious believers seriously because they try so hard to control my life and invade my privacy. They often come knocking on my door, trying to convert me into their sect. They want Creationism taught in school science classes. They want business places and entertainment venues closed down when they celebrate their holy days. They demand tax exemptions which means that I have to pay more than my fair share. They refuse medical advice and watch their children die in agony while some ratbag preacher unsuccessfully prays for a cure.
And then we get stories like this one from today's news:
The mother accused of fatally throwing her baby from a fourth-floor window in Queens on Friday allegedly told detectives she killed the infant boy because an "evil spirit" had taken over the child.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/
Religious people really should be taken seriously.
Erickson also resorts to the logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum" when he suggests that large numbers of people have said they believe in god and they can't all be wrong therefore god exists! That's like saying there was a time when many people believed the world was flat. They couldn't have all been wrong so the world is flat! Clearly an appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum) does not necessarily lead one to the truth.
He goes on to say that if a Christian says he has experienced an encounter with god then the atheists should simply accept it as the truth and assume that god really does exist. But how reliable are those stories about people experiencing god's presence? Let's go back to the bible for an answer: Here are links to what scripture says about Saint Paul's encounter with god at the time of his conversion:
(Galatians 1:15-17)
Now try to find the truth behind those four versions of the same event. Was there anyone with Paul at the time of his conversion or was he alone? If there were men with him, did they remain standing or did they all fall down? Did they see and hear everything or did they see and hear nothing? Each story is different!
And what happened to Paul after his conversion? Did he go to Arabia first - or Damascus? Galatians says one thing. Acts says another.
Christian apologists resolve these contradictions with that famous escape clause used so often: "God works in mysterious ways." It may work for Christians; I am not so easily impressed.
Third, one who wants to maintain his/her atheism should avoid urgent or life-threatening situations. During those times people are tempted to call upon a supernatural outside agent for help. There seem to be very few atheists in battlefield foxholes or in classrooms during final tests. Situations in which humans are vulnerable and powerless are also occasions when people tend to turn to a deity. During a drought, farmers with little religious inclination often start praying for rain. Of course, it is not easy to make sure one never encounters these type of situations, but they are fertile ground for theism to grow.
Here Erickson is saying that when atheists are at the point of death they will always call upon god to save them, but that is just not true. I have been in several situations where I thought I was going to die and most times I have had just one thought: "So this is how it ends." And one other time, when I was flying through the air after crashing my motorbike the only thought on my mind was: "This is a big one."
As for soldiers in foxholes - I was never in the army, but my father fought in World War II and he said that whenever he was close to a dying soldier most of them (including the Christians) called not for god, but for their mother.
Fourth, a person wanting to avoid theism should hole up in a university-like setting, where atheists tend to congregate. They do so not because they are more intelligent than theists, but because this setting allows for greater energy devoted to explaining away God’s existence than most. When theistic thoughts start to seep into one’s mind, it is helpful to have friends around who will serve as a reminder that, even though arguments in favor of atheism are often shallow and self-refuting, “cool people” just don’t believe in God.
He seems to be saying that atheists have to hang around together because if they are left alone they will become Christians. That's such a weak argument I don't think I'll bother to respond.
No friends, being an atheist isn’t easy. I am also convinced any effort to maintain atheism is unwise, because theism is really a much better choice. Belief in God, especially the God described in the Bible, provides a foundation for an individual to experience purpose, meaning, love and hope. And, there is every reason to believe this God actually does exist.
That last sentence is a doozy. Here's a summary of the 'evidence' he provides:
(1) Humans have a tendency to believe in god.
(2) Nature is awesome and the bible says god did it.
(3) A lot of people believe in god and they can't all be wrong.
(4) When the chips are down people ask god to help them.
(5) University educated atheists say god doesn't exist but they are just trying to be 'cool' and they really do believe in god after all.Therefore god exists!
Rev. Dan Erickson
Senior Pastor
Chisholm Baptist Church
No comments:
Post a Comment