New Community
Faith & Doubt :: The Tension between Faith & Doubt :: week one
Jan 22, 2010
The Apostle Peter instructs us to,
…Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts,
always be prepared to give an answer
to everyone who asks you to give the reason
for the hope that you have.
But do this with gentleness and respect.
1 Peter 3:15
As we launch into a new series, we do so with the prayer that God will help us to live our lives is such a way that we actually become compelling to the world around us. Not merely because of the clothes that we wear, the bumper-stickers we sport or the declarations we proclaim, rather by the expressions of "hope" and authentic love that simply permeate our very being.
It seems, that Peter assumed that there would be such compelling life expressions as hope and love were simply the natural byproduct of someone "sanctifying Christ" in their "hearts". As this community of followers of Christ withstood persecution and suffering with steadfast-consistency, others looking on would be stuck by the essence and quality of their "hope" and be moved to inquire the "reason" and source of such strength.
The word Peter used here for “reason” is the Greek word apologia. We get the English word “apologetics” from it. Not to be confused with giving an “apology” of “I’m sorry.” Apologetics is an intellectual response that gives reason or defense for what one believes.
In this series, Faith & Doubt, we are going to explore some of the questions that are being asked about Christianity and faith in God. In recent days, there has been a resurgence within academic settings, that has brought some of the age-old questions and challenges regarding God, faith and science to the forefront of the conversation. In this series, we’ll be exploring some of these questions.
To get started, there will be a lay-out of a few terms that are commonly used in such philosophical conversations. Secondly, before we begin to engage specific questions, it may be helpful to introduce several writers who have been instrumental in reframing specific questions in an attempt to discredit the claims of Christianity and such. There will be a few excerpts from their writings to help us get a sense of the types of things they are writing and the tone in which they are being written.
A Few Terms:
- Apologetics: apologia (1 Peter 3:15) – to give a reason, answer, instruction or defense.
- Apologetics is an intellectual response that gives reason or defense for what one believes.
- Theism: is the belief in the existence of a god (or gods); specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
- Deity created the universe and continues to actively participate in the world's activities and in human history.
- Polytheist (polytheism) – poly – many + Theos – God.
- Monotheist (Monotheism) – mono – one + Theos – God.
- Agnostic: a (without) gnosis (knowledge) –is one who does not know whether or not there is a God.
- The “soft” agnostic does not know whether or not there is a God.
- The “hard” agnostic says one cannot know about the existence of God.
- Atheist: a (not/negative) theos (god/deity) – Without God –an atheist is one who does not believe in God. Additionally, the atheist may or may not actually deny the existence of God.
"The atheists no longer want to be tolerated. They want to monopolize the public square and to expel Christians from it," writes Dinesh D'Souza. "They want political questions like abortion to be divorced from religious and moral claims. They want to control school curricula so they can promote a secular ideology and undermine Christianity. They want to discredit the factual claims of religion, and they want to convince the rest of society that Christianity is not only mistaken but also evil. They blame religion for the crimes of history and the ongoing conflicts in the world today. In short, they want to make religion - and especially the Christian religion - disappear from the face of the earth."[1]
In recent days, there’s been a resurgence, particularly in academic circles of what’s being called, as I mentioned earlier, “The New Atheism.” It’s more than a casual dismissal of the belief in God…
New Atheism: don’t simply – not believe in God, they are antitheist.
It’s more of an evangelistic crusade to remove the belief in God from the consciousness of humanity… Richad Dawkins calls it “militant atheism.”
As stated, New Atheist, don’t just not believe in God, they are opposed to God and the belief thereof. It’s not just a stance of, “I don’t believe God exists,” rather its one of “God does not exist and you’re ludicrous if you believe He does…”
They contend that since belief in God is so LUDICROUS, there must be some biological reason that causes them to do so. Especially, since no one in their right mind would do so.
As such, Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion supposes, “The proximate cause of religion might be hyperactivity in a particular node of the brain.”[2]
Or, as cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker suggests, there might be a “God module” in the brain that predisposes people to believe in the Almighty.[3]
The contend that such belief in God goes against all reason, not to mention, all the evidentiary facts of science.
Scholars like anthropologist Scott Atran presume that religious beliefs are nothing more than illusions.
Atran contends that religious belief requires taking:
“what is materially false to be true” and
“what is materially true to be false.”
Atran and others believe that religion requires a commitment to “factually impossible worlds.”[4]
The New Atheists refer to themselves as “brights.”
“I am bright,” writes Richard Dawkins, which he defines a bright as one who espouses "a worldview that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."[5]
According to Daniel Dennett, "We brights don’t believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny – or God.”[6]
Christopher Hitchens, in his book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything says,
“All religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place.”[7]
Question:
- What are some of your initial reactions to some of these statements?
- How would you respond and answer such assertions?
[1] Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, xv.
[2] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 168.
[3] Steven Pinker, "The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion," lecture at MIT conference, October 14, 1998.
[4] Dinesh D'Souza, 15, cited by Robin Henig, "Darwin's God," New York Times Magazine, March 4, 2007;
Scott Atran, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary landscape of Religion, 264.
[5] Richard Dawkins, "The Future Looks Bright," Guardian, June 21, 2003.
[6] Daniel Dennett, "The Bright Stuff," New York Times, July 12, 2003.
[7] Christopher Hitchens, "Bush's Secularist Triumph," Slate.com, November 9, 2004.
Posted By: Jerrell Jobe
Category: New Community Service

3 Response(s)
Joao Calhandro
on Jan 22, 2010 9:25pm
They thought we would enjoy the topic being covered: Faith and Doubt; as it does give such friends and us an opportunity to talk a lot about faith.
So we went to your event, last Wednesday.
The reason for such an invitation?
My wife is an Agnostic, and I am a militant Atheist: the unmentioned harmless kind, by the way.
I was invited to go again for the remainder of the Faith and Doubt sessions, and I will, unless the church feels it is inappropriate for me to do so, or that militant atheists such as myself are not welcome, even if just to sit and watch, like I did.
After all, not only do I agree with what Peter says about gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15 - but in this case about my lack of faith), but my militant atheism was completely taken out of proportion and misrepresented in biased ways.
I do understand why it was presented that way, I do respect your church and your opinions, but I would like to satisfy my curiosity about how you see us, the militant atheists, the same way I did last Wednesday, if you don't mind.
Unfortunately, such biased positions do strengthen my convictions, but my belief that we can't know the truth unless we know the end result of Faith and Doubt in its entirety is paramount. I want to avoid rushing to conclusions.
Congratulations on the event, by the way.
I was really impressed with your willingness to touch such topics, and the way you presented most of it.
The definitions / terms, I thought, were totally accurate.
It is a totally different (better, even!) experience than those of my ex-roman-catholic years while growing up in Portugal, Europe.
See you next Wednesday, I hope.
Jerrell Jobe
on Jan 22, 2010 10:27pm
Thanks for your comment and perspective.
I'm glad you and your wife joined us Wednesday.
As stated, I appreciate your perspective and questions in regards to the content that was presented. As I'm sure you understand, in such a short time, it is difficult to illustrate all the various types and demonstrations of various stances (secularists, nonbelievers, non-theists, apatheists, anti-theists, agnostics, skeptics, etc...). This is why I limited it to the few broad categories and definitions that you mentioned.
That being said, I in no way see all atheist as "bad" people. Likewise, I don't view all "atheist" as those I referenced Wednesday night. However, I did want to make a few distinctions regarding the recent influence of various voices within atheism (i.e. particularly those who consider themselves "the brights" or "new atheists").
Though time didn't grant space for more lengthy deliberations on the various expressions of atheism, the references I mentioned weren't, I don't believe, misrepresentations of the texts or the authors themselves. Each of the references, seems to be a pretty consistent portrayal of the sum of the mentioned authors writings.
My goal, to the best of my ability, is to provide a clear and understandable summary of the claims, questions and assertions that have been and/or are being made in regards to faith, religion and God, as well as to explore what some thought-ful responses to such questions and claims might be.
Again, I'm glad you and your wife joined us and you are more than welcome to join us the next several weeks.
Joao Calhandro
on Jan 26, 2010 5:47pm
I also agree that it is very hard to tackle all variants of atheism.
It is exactly because of it, that we can't paint atheism as the group that threatens a faith, nor as the one that doesn't. Neither is true, and the truth is exactly that: complicated.
I am not claiming you did this overall, but within militant atheism alone, I felt that you did.
I think I am a threat to religious faith.
However, I only believe to be so if someone understands my atheism. That understanding can only come from dialog, curiosity and willingness to understand me to begin with. Not from a category that I more or less may fit into.
Without that, I am, as mentioned before, harmless, and I can prove it (some other time). Other people's Atheism may or may not reflect my own for their own reasons.
Atheism is an individual achievement.
Even though Faith can be too, Religion can't.
A Religion and its followers are bound by a set of beliefs, therefore we can expect accuracy in describing some behaviors and/or beliefs when grouping people by faith.
Atheism does not have a belief set, nor a set of reasons that all atheists share (or are supposed to share) to support their disbelief.
Therefore, one cannot expect a good enough precision in grouping atheists as one can expect when grouping religious people.
As far as your representations of the texts, I do agree you quoted them well. However, excerpts were picked that stir a negative sentiment towards atheists, and specifically, the militant ones.
You are a great speaker by the way.
I wouldn't feel like seeing this through if you weren't.
But as complex of a subject as these are, I felt that the responsibility towards people that follow you as their spiritual leader or guide was a little overshadowed by the emotional aspect of your faith towards the least desirable form of atheism (from your perspective).
I wish I could blame you for it, but I suffer from the same problem with the emotional aspects of my atheism. :)
Here is an example:
Exodus 31:14
In other words: mess with the resting day, be killed.
Genesis 3:16
In other words: men rule women. Period.
How hard is it to make God look bad with these texts alone?
One makes him cruel and intolerant, the other makes him sexist.
It is hard to hear, yes, but I would say it is as easy for religious people to be shocked at the texts you showed, as it is for me to look at these 2 that I picked, and accept that sometimes God wakes up to the wrong side of the bed. Without any context, that would always be the conclusion I would arrive to.
In the interest of fairness, there are militant atheists that are more extreme than others, some that are unfair even (I personally know some of those), but there are others with good reasons for agreeing with: abortion, the removal of religion and creationism from public schools (not from religious related courses, nor history courses), from public government buildings and procedures, from the money we all carry, and the abolition of tax breaks for religious institutions.
And this is just a guy from the militant atheist category. Just one. Are these claims and its reasons simple to follow or the same for all militant atheists? Of course not. :) I wish.
Do they make religious people want to understand them before disagreeing with them? You tell me.
That is why the reasons aren't here now, they are too long, and too many. But until we know them, we will never know if our conclusions about any atheist or class of atheism carry any truth or value.
Log in to post a comment