I have a couple of wonderful atheist friends on Facebook who I get into debate with from time to time on the existence of God. No surprise there. In this particular case a trail was started by one of my atheist friends regarding the upcoming pro-life Pam and Tim Tebow ad that will be shown on CBS during the Super Bowl. My friend questioned if the “religious right” would change their minds about advocacy ads if Planned Parenthood were to buy an ad next year. A young lady named “Jane” responded that though she agrees with the Super Bowl ad, she would like to separate religion from being pro-life, since she is not religious, but is pro-life. I jumped in on the discussion, asking my friend exactly what the “religious right” is, and suggested to Jane that I didn’t believe one could realistically separate religion from being pro-life. It is this latter point that I would like to discuss, as well as a larger point about the atheist position.
Now let me be perfectly clear. My atheist friends are kind and thoughtful people, otherwise, they wouldn’t be my friends. And for those who might think otherwise, just because someone is an atheist does not mean they don’t have a set of morals or values, or that they don’t believe there is such thing as right or wrong. In fact, this is the response from Jane on the trail (who says she’s not religious, but doesn’t state she is an atheist):
What I have a disagreement with is the notion that one who is not a Christian can have no notion of the preciousness or high value of life–even at the beginning of life. I believe abortion is murder just as it would be to kill that baby after it is born. I do not have to believe in Christianity to hold that standard.
Christianity is true to those who believe. I am not disputing that. However, just because I do not believe does not mean I cannot be a person with a high moral standard or with a belief in the value of life. Right and wrong can exist without God.
I responded to Jane that we don’t disagree at all that one who is not a Christian can have a notion of preciousness or high value of life, because she is absolutely correct on that notion. What I disagree with is her assertion that one can even have an objective standard for what is right or wrong without God. It would be an entirely subjective determination, based solely on what is currently “accepted” in a given society. But the interesting thing is why would society enforce certain standards as to what should or should not be accepted without an objective standard? Without God, what we have left is survival of the fittest, and if not that, then enforcement of what is considered right by societal convention. Since societal values would be entirely subjective, and thus subject to change, then is it fair to have any societal standards whatsoever? I would argue no. Being pro-life would be the equivalent of being pro-abortion, because neither position would be of greater value than the other.
My second argument is with Jane’s second paragraph. What I would like her to understand is that the truth of Christianity has nothing to do with what people believe. It has to do with what is true. Something that is true is true regardless of whether Jane or I believe it is false. In other words, our beliefs don’t make anything true or false, because truth or falsity is objective and independent of us. It is up to us to use the three pounds of grey matter we have been given to discover what is the truth and to know what is right from wrong. Fundamentally, my belief is that there is truth, and we can apprehend truth. I don’t see how anyone can live without some access to truth, though we obviously cannot know truth exhaustively. Thus, with respect to Christianity, I must be fully open to Christianity being falsified, which I am. It is not true just because I believe it, and I think it would be a huge mistake for any Christian to feel otherwise.
Now one of my atheist friends argues that the reason he is an atheist is because he chooses to believe scientific fact over religious doctrine and interpretation. But where he is wrong is in the presumption that I don’t believe in God because of scientific fact. Indeed, it is scientific fact that leads me to God. Science demonstrates to me that the universe had a beginning, and science shows me the marvelous workings of a great creator in the vastness of the universe and at the microscopic level of the world of molecular biology. In my view, the reason God gave us this grey matter with a unity of consciousness is precisely so we would have the equipment to see that he exists in nature, while also giving us the free will to reject him if we so desire. And as to Christianity, historical witness and archaeological findings demonstrate to me there is little question as to the history of the Jewish people and whether Christ existed. What is in dispute is if Christ rose from the dead. Thus it is the resurrection that I take on faith, as the rest of the equation is just facts, which don’t require much faith.
{ 1 comment }
Thank you for this note, Walter. Your writing always gets me thinking, and it’s great to learn about faith and varying perspectives of this growing secular society.
I have an atheist friend who I had couple conversations with about God and His existence. I will probably get into more detail and ask you at Studio 18, but she believes that some type of “energy” exists in this world, and I think if she was exposed to the Bible and Christianity, she will realize that the “energy” is simply the holy spirit. Once we get Studio18 set up, we can invite people like her for philosophical chats and clarify some of the uncertainty they face.
Comments on this entry are closed.