thoughts out !oud

a Christian’s news, views, opinions and occasional poetry …

Lazy Myth: There is no reasonable evidence for Christianity

Posted by Mathew | 29 June 08

This somewhat blasé objection goes something along the lines of: I don’t believe in the Christian God for exactly the same reasons you don’t believe in Odin (a Norse god) or the Tooth Fairy.

(This argument is actually a softer variant of Stephen Roberts’s argument: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.)

Firstly, the issuer of this argument (which is actually nothing more than fluffed-up rhetoric) is attempting to pursuade his opponent and/or audience not by reason nor by contradictory evidence, but purely - and unjustly - by association. He is stating, by inference, that only the misinformed, immature and childish believe in the Tooth Fairy and that therefore, if you believe in the Christian God then you, too, are silly, stupid and uneducated.

Secondly, the argument makes assumptions about the basis for the Christian faith. Again, there is no reasoning nor contradictory evidence against the Christian claim - there is just a blind assumption. Ironically, this argument is actually a statement of faith on the behalf of the person who has issued it.

So, essentially, this (and others like it - even Christians use similar arguments against anti-theists!) argument is an appeal to emotion. And a very lazy one at that. After all, you may as well argue: I don’t barrack for the Richmond Football Club for the same reasons you don’t follow Manchester United. Well, duh! For starters, both teams play in different codes of football and both have a very differently shaped football, to boot (pun intended. Sorry).

The argument is lazy because it simply just assumes that you follow what you are brought up to follow, or are influenced to follow. It assumes your supporting of Manchester United is a matter of your environment - Richard Dawkins would say if you were born in an Islamic state, then chances are you would believe in Islam. Although Mr Dawkins is correct to a degree, insofar as the illustration is concerned, it still fails to properly and thoroughly address the real heart of the matter, chiefly: what does Christianity have that makes it more real, rational and believable than any other religion?

On a recent discussion I was having with a member of the Paraclete Forum (a forum of Christian believers (and a good number of scientists across many fields among them!) who are equipped to answer any and every question one might have regarding the Christian faith), I was told, in essence, that the answer to this difference is partly due to the historical reliability of the Bible. He had this to say:

In the Biblical worldview, one’s belief does not make the Bible historically accurate–it is accurate independent of my belief, all by itself … So, the objective truth that is clearly in the Bible, e.g., regarding dietary laws, regarding historical principles (people, places, events), and regarding all the prophetic passages (documented both as occurring precisely as predicted, and those that are yet to be fulfilled), clearly sets the Biblical accounts far off from those of Zeus, Zoroaster, and the blind philosophers. No one believes that the events of Krishna or Buddha actually happened–they’re great allegories. But, what kind of allegory is David seducing Bathsheba and having her husband killed? Jesus died on a cross whether you or I believe it or not.

This is an important point. Even if I believe the Bible and in the God of the Bible simply for the sake of believing (choosing), my belief does not validate it. The fact that the events described in the Bible have been proven accurate by archaeology, historical records and the like, are what really validates one’s belief, along with the precious gifts of the Holy Spirit and most especially the radical changes that can occur in a Christian’s life when he undergoes conversion. These are why Christianity is a faith of reason and more importantly these are what Christianity have over all other religions and the ancient mythological gods of the greeks and romans: corroborative evidence. This is the epistemology that Christians employ in order to credibly defend their position and their faith.

The Lazy Myth argument employs no such reasoning at all - it relies only on a vague notion of empiricism, which has no place in such an argument on metaphysical topics to begin with and therefore invalidates itself against the person (the theist) to whom it is addressed.

After all, a theist’s reasons for rejecting all other gods apart from the Christian God of the Bible, is in no way shape or form the same reason why an anti-theist rejects the Christian God. To assert otherwise, as this argument does, demonstrates some very, very lazy thinking indeed.

Other Lazy Myths:
Christians don’t have any fun
All religions are equal

[For more interesting reading, especially regarding Roberts's original argument, read this treatise from itinerarium mentis.]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Tags: > > > > >

Filed Under Apologetics |

Comments