Theology

Someone once asserted "I'm not convinced that the obstacle to the supernatural is always being addle-headed due to a commitment to some sin or other."

But consider this example: I have a good friend who was a naval fighter pilot during WWII and we worked closely together on an aerospace project and had occasion to do a lot of talking. We went target shooting at a local pistol range and I took him fishing on my boat several times. Though he has been retired for several years, we still keep in touch.

He would fit the category of having a life style involving no obvious sin. He is still happily married to his childhood sweetheart whom he affectionately refers to as "sweety-face." He is a doting father and grandfather. In the many years that I've known him, I have never seen any obvious "sinful" behavior.

And, we have occasionally talked about religion. This has been somewhat awkward because he has not wanted to offend me with his atheism. Also, although he is highly intelligent, he is not what I would call an intellectual. He is not very well read. He has studied neither philosophy nor theology nor the "great books," nor anything else that is commonly associated with being an intellectual. His life is very full and he has never been interested in spending time doing anything other than what he is doing. He is totally happy with his present life style. He has always attempted to show some interest in Religion, but I suspect that has been for my benefit. He has a list of Religious offenses that he trots out, and it's always the same list. Since retirement he has no occasion to expose himself to any new offenses. But I really don't think the "list" is getting in the way of his becoming a Christian. I think his life style is such that he is completely satisfied with it. It is very full. He has no room for religion. He doesn't feel the need of a "savior."

Now let us consider the possibilities:

MAN GENERATED RELIGION: If, as many atheists believe, religion is man-generated [Marx called it the opiate of the masses. Jung thought it was the projection of man's "oversoul," expressing man's need. Herder thought it was an expression of poetic, creative, instinct in (in the case of Judeo-Christianity) of a primitive (but very talented) people.] then my friend, filling his need in ways that don't involve religion, is okay just the way he is.

GOD GENERATED RELIGION: If, as Conservative Christians believe, the Christian Religion is God generated; then (given Conservative dogma) it is unacceptable for anyone not to become a Christian. Thus any life style that is used in place of Religion would be predisposing an individual to oppose an involvement in Religion, and, therefore, wrong.

To tie this back to the question "what argument could we use to convince the atheist," I confess to having used a variety of arguments with my friend, even to the point of his becoming very heated in maintaining his own position [which I probably shouldn't have done since it later turned out that he had a heart condition]. . . But my friend, since he knew my beliefs, was in the habit of occasionally introducing certain arguments in an attempt to convince me that he was okay just the way he was. He often drew attention to the fact that his own behavior was superior to that of the extreme Fundamentalist Christians that we both knew.

Which brings me to another question sometimes voiced "The great flaw in contemporary thought concerning atheists is that rudeness is an acceptable in debate." Many atheists are equally adept; although this doesn't excuse Christians. On more than one occasion I thought a person I was debating was being rude but it turned out later that was not his intention; which points out something we already knew, i.e., that communication is very difficult. We think we know what the other is saying, but upon further conversation we learn that we were mistaken. Perhaps it is the fault of the person we are debating for not being clear, or perhaps it is our fault for jumping too quickly to the wrong conclusion -- or perhaps it is a combination of the two. It becomes easy for someone to take offense.

I do tend to take offense when someone tells me that I am not qualified to speak on a subject I have spent years studying. But perhaps this too is a failure to communicate. It involves subjective evaluation of others and we can't, at least initially, know what the others know. In the case of Atheism, I have read the atheist classics, and not only the classics but other books that were consistent with atheism. I have engaged in many arguments both as an atheist and later as a Christian with atheists. I argued with atheists for several years on PRODIGY & later on GEnie, and I've been doing it for virtually all of my adult life (which is a long time). Thus, when an atheist would tell me I wasn't qualified to speak on the subject of atheism, (which has happened several times), I usually feel he is being rude. However, that may not be his intention. He probably feels that since he is still and atheist that his own experience is superior to mine. . .

Then, perhaps he is taking offense at me. Many of the atheists are young, and since I am the old hand in Philosophy and Theology, perhaps they feel I have some unjustifiable psychological need to be superior on every subject and claim to know more about Atheism than I really do. . .

Lawrence