Apologetics 103 The Basic Departure

Someone once asked "What would you say the basic departure from atheism towards theism is?"

The question falls under the theological category of Apologetics which has come to mean "defense of the faith." But the question invites an "offense." And many Apologists do approach the problem from this standpoint. They are called Evidentialists. One of the most famous modern Evidentialists is John Warwick Montgomery. He is a Lutheran theologian and lawyer. He was president of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law -- a Christian based law school. He approached the problem of Apologetics as he would a legal case. I heard him argue the case for the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection for which more evidence exists than for virtually any case being tried in courts of law today. Montgomery was a famous debater. He engaged in several recorded debates with notable atheists. He is credited with the single-handed destruction of the "God is Dead" movement. His debates with its president were so overwhelmingly decisive that the president got out an injunction against Montgomery's issuing the tape of the debate -- but word leaked out.

Another Evidentialist is Josh MacDowell. His most famous books are EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT and MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT. He would travel around to colleges giving lectures and debating atheists.

But I am more attracted to the school of Apologetics known as Presuppositionalism. A person I once debated said "I find the entire fabric of 'faith' to be made of extremely thin material...at least when applied to the existence of God. My own belief in God is based not upon a philosophy or a 'hunch' or even a 'plausibility' but on a supernatural event in my life which provided me empirical proof. As a reasonable consequence, I find myself in sympathy with those who have no such thing to base their understanding upon."

And yet Christians come to a belief in Christ in that way. The 'supernatural event' is differently arranged in each case, but it is always present in the regeneration and salvation process.

Some people complain that they can't effectively study unless they are in a classroom situation, but that has never been my experience. When I became an atheist at about 21, I set about reading the atheist classics: Paine, Voltaire, Hume, Shelley, the Huxley's, Thomas Hardy. I read the scientific works considered to be the scientific undergirdings: Sir James G. Frazer's THE GOLDEN BOUGH, Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES, more titles than I can conveniently list.

Eventually, after several years, I came to a ROMANS 1-type conviction that there probably was a God, but who he was or what he intended I had no idea. I recall reading [the atheist philosopher] William James' VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE and trying [unsuccessfully] to achieve some of the experiences he describes. These experiences, in James' opinion were self-generated.

But experience, per se, isn't necessarily enough. The believers described by James had experiences they credited, but some had experiences they did not.

About 20 years ago I had a highly intelligent, well-educated, intellectual, black atheist working for me. I thought we would have atheism in common, but he didn't like mine. It was too gentle, too melancholy, too wistful. His was angry, militant, aggressive. He once told me of an experience he had. His father, a few hours after his death, appeared to him, walked down his hall, made some silent gesture that meant something to him; although I can't recall its significance. A convinced atheist might write this off as an hallucination, but he didn't. He was convinced that it really happened. I was interested in how the belief in this experience affected his atheism, but it apparently didn't. He considered it an anomaly he couldn't explain and simply left it at that.

I eventually learned that he was a homosexual and a rather flamboyant one. He used to play chess during the lunch period and he would leave a black queen sitting on his desk. During one argument (the nature of which I don't recall), I wrote a note I entitled WHITE KNIGHT TO BLACK QUEEN. Apparently he was shocked that someone straight could see through his little arrogance. He didn't let on that he understood my allusion, but he stopped leaving the black queen on his desk. He was a brittle diabetic and his life style seemed to subject him to injuries that resulted in amputations, and one day he didn't make it to work. Some injury resulted in his death. If homosexuality were discovered in those days, it resulted in a loss of security clearance, so he never admitted to me that he was homosexual. I have often wondered about him since. To what extent did his homosexuality overawe any possible interest in religion? It is a Christian dogma and a psychological truism that a preoccupation with something will cloud a persons mind such that he can't think adequately about other things.

Christianity is very confrontive in regard to certain behavior. It teaches the forgiveness of everything, but you've got to give up the thing you are seeking forgiveness for. Today certain liberal denominations accept homosexuality, but Conservative Christianity still does not. A person is often forced to choose between Christianity and a certain behavior pattern.

But if one is (caused to be) predisposed to put it all on the block -- be (caused to be) willing to change whatever behavior pattern is causing the problem; then a bargain (so to speak) can be reached -- the supernatural event occurs, faith appears, and one's eyes are opened.

From the standpoint of the atheist, the problems are often described as being "intellectual". The "argument," and "evidence" are said to be deciding factors. But these factors cannot be the deciding factor in any absolute sense (although the atheist may "believe" they are "deciding" in a subjective sense) because they do not demand atheism.

It is more difficult to get into one's presuppositions because this process demands considerable honesty and a willingness to be ruthless in ferreting out self-deception. I have read a lot of Freud & Theodore Reik but much more Karl Jung. One need not be a Freudian (and I am not) to appreciate the tools Freud, and his successors, have developed. The "subconscious" can be approached from many different avenues. One can gain insight into one's motivations and presuppositions. To operate as though all motivation is based upon "objective reason" is a self-deception. Someone insisting that he operates with total transparency without guile or self-deception is deeply self-deceived.

One needs to ask "why am I predisposed to be an atheist or theist"? In many cases people are predisposed to accept the views they were raised with. Interestingly, the acceptance or rejection of the views of one's parents often corresponds directly to the nature of one's relationship with one's parents. Those who revere their parents are far more likely to accept their theological views than those who don't. Often there is a mixture of respect for certain qualities and disdain for others. The "preacher's kid" is a common expression. Many such children rebelled against their religious parents. And, of course, there is the reverse, Madelene Murray O'Hare's son rebelled against her atheism and became an Evangelical Christian.

Lawrence