Guide to the Response to “Why I Became An Atheist”

My response to John Loftus’ book “Why I Became An Atheist” has taken the form of numerous posts.  This post will guide you through them.  I recommend they be read in the following order (after the list I describe why these posts and this order are important):

Initial Review / Limits of Reason / The Subjective Truth

1. Initial Review of “Why I Became An Atheist” by John Loftus
2. Introduction:  An Overview of the Limitations of Reason
   
3. Hume’s Destruction of Causality
4. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason
5. Kant’s Rejection of Metaphysical Knowledge
6. The Rise of the Romantics
7. Hegel’s Attempt to Restore the Metaphysical
8. Kierkegaard’s Emphasis on Existence and Subjective Truth
9. Nietzche and the Will to Power
10. G.E. Moore’s Attempt at Realism
11. Lord Russell’s Failure to Refute Hume
12. The Embarrassment of the Logical Positivists
13. Summation:  An Overview of the Limitations of Reason
14. The Living Subjectivity of Michel Henry
15. Greek Truth Denies Real Truth
16. On the Inward Truth
17. True Life and Biological Life
18. The Starting Point of All Inquiry is the Human Condition
19. The Gospel of Jesus Christ
20. The Tanakh and the Gospel
21. The Meanings of the Cross of Jesus Christ
22. The Gospel:  Faith, Decision and Authentic Existence
23. Salvation IS Resurrection
24. The Schema

The Outsider Test of Faith

1. On the Outsider Test of Faith

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

1. A World With No Suffering
2. Meaningless Suffering:  Hume’s Definition of the Problem
3. What is the Meaning of “Good”?
4. Animal Suffering as Collateral Damage
5. Animal Suffering and Moral Orders
6. Incredulous Morality:  Not a Single Animal Dies in Australian Forest Fires
7. Sartre:  Suffering and Evil Create Freedom

My initial review described my main contentions against the book, which are elaborated on in various blogs:

REASON IS INADEQUATE FOR SPIRITUAL INQUIRY

The twelve-part series “An Overview of the Limitations of Reason,” which is an exposition of the inadequacy of reason to grasp the spiritual, the subjective and the Self, is critical to my response to Loftus. Throughout his book, Loftus cites scientific and historical evidence and utilizes logical argument in an attempt to refute theism.  His whole argument rises and falls on whether rational empiricism is even capable of refuting Christianity.

My discussions with rational atheists have led me to believe that they are wholly lacking in an understanding of the thing seem to prize the most - reason.   The developments of western philosophy, however, are the demonstration of the failure of reason.  The series takes the reader through these developments.    The history of reason (philosophy) demonstrates that reason must be based on faith in something.  That is, reason needs grounding assumptions or axioms to function.   But what western philosophy has illuminated is that reason and science - though they may be effective in the objective world in a practical sense - are ultimately without ground and foundation.  The universe floats, and is therefore, as Loftus surmises, absurd.

In the past Loftus has accused me of denigrating science when in fact I am simply pointing out that the foundation of reason is mere assumption and that reason has boundaries, on the other side of which is the spiritual.  It’s not my fault the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

If Loftus is going to truly “debunk Christianity” then, using rationalism, he   must do what reason itself, what western philosophy, has proved itself incapable of doing:  ground reason in something other than assumptions and demonstrate that reason is applicable to all areas of existence, including the subjective.   The reason why “it takes too much intellectual gerrymandering to believe” is that reason is inadequate to the task.

Since reason is incapable of apprehending the spiritual, a number of sections of Loftus’ book - since they are based on rationalism, are groundless and irrelevant:

1. Does God Exist?  (rational proofs are worthless)
2. The Lessons of Galileo, Science and Religion (The Positivists failed to ground science)
3. The Poor Evidence of Historical Evidence
4. Science and the Genesis Creation Accounts
5. Science and Genesis 1-11
6. Was Jesus God Incarnate?  (If we cannot even ground science to reason, or ground reason with incorrigible, verifiable facts, can we expect to reason out whether it’s logical for God to become a man?  No.)

THE STARTING POINT IS THE SUBJECTIVE EXISTENTIAL CONDITION

Why does Loftus hold the position that reason is effective and that the starting point is the objective (the world)?   Because he is bound, as are most rational atheists, in Anglo-American culture bias.  Western philosophy is not in consensus about the power of reason and the primacy of the objective - that is precisely why there is such a thing as “continental philosophy.”

Not only is there a bias towards reason in Anglo-American culture, but there is also a bias towards the objective world. But again, the course of western philosophy highlights the problems in grounding truth in the objective world.  In their quest for certainty, the logical positivists found that the ground brute fact cannot be, for example, even a simple sense impression such as  “here now blue”  because it’s always I experience “here now blue.”  There is no brute fact apart from my experience of it. Thus, the subjective  holds primacy over the objective.

You can read more about the Subjective and its reality in Kierkegaard’s Emphasis on Existence and the Subjective Truth as well as my posts on the phenomenologist Michel Henry:

The Living Subjectivity of Michel Henry
Greek Truth Denies Real Truth
On the Inward Truth
True Life and Biological Life

The point is that one does not begin with the objective world.  The Starting Point of All Inquiry is the Human Condition. I agree with Loftus that we cannot begin our inquiry into theism with any assumptions about God, but I disagree that we begin with the world.  We begin with ourselves, which is closer to us than the world.

There is a primary mode of knowledge of Christ - and it’s not historical evidence - it’s through Life and the Self. I have been accused of “making up my own religion”, when in fact I fall well within a line of philosophical thought:  Kierkegaard, Nietzche, Sartre, Heidegger, Ricoeur, Derrida, Cassier, Bultmann, Tillich, Henry, some of which are atheists, I might add.  It is within the subjective realm that God is decisively encountered, not the objective world.

Our human condition is one of absurdity, and thus quite frequently one of anxiety and sometimes despair.   We can’t reason our way out of that.   Our universe is ambiguous and our existence is meaningless.

It is into this darkness of absurdity that meaning is spoken through The Gospel of Jesus Christ.   Yet again, the history of western philosophy is instructive here.   Russell had attempted to ground reason (or mathematics, which is our citadel of reason / logic) but Godel showed that not only was Russell’s system was incomplete, but that any such system must be incomplete.   No such system can be proved within itself - it must make reference to something outside itself.  It should come to no surprise to Loftus that the universe is absurd, for it is impossible to find the meaning of the universe within the universe itself.

The question is, do we have anything that even claims to be from outside the system?  We do, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which speaks to our inner, subjective man.  Meaning is delivered to us through the Gospel on a number of different levels, through The Meanings of the Cross of Jesus Christ.

The reader should note here that neither the Gospel nor the Meanings of the Cross make an appeal to either natural theology - which is effectively destroyed by the lack of causal connectivity as described by Hume - or the Bible.   The Gospel is not derived from the Bible.  (See The Tanakh and the Gospel).

The Gospel is a power in that it is able to bring meaning to my existence, but its power extends beyond the idea of concept.  When it is coupled with my radical decision and resolve to receive / accept it, my very being is transformed, a subjective truth - my life - is clarified and given definition.   This is what is meant by salvation, new creation and resurrection.  Salvation IS resurrection.

Because the Gospel is specific about what it requires me to believe, and because the Gospel is not derived from the Bible, the following sections of Loftus’ book are irrelevant:

1. The Strange and Superstitious World of the Bible (the Bible is NOT the source of the Gospel)
2. Prophecy and Biblical Authority
3. Do Miracles Take Place?  (the Gospel requires me to believe in only one miracle - the Resurrection)
4. Was Jesus Born of a Virgin in Bethlehem?  (the Gospel does not require me to believe this)
5. The Devil Made Me Do It!  (the Gospel does not require me to believe this)
6. Hell? No!  (the Gospel does not require me to believe this)

My Schema is thus a statement of perspective that flows from the human condition itself and how the Gospel enters into that condition, and coupled with my radical decision, is a power to transform that condition.   The Schema has explanatory power to clarify a number of aspects of Christianity, but its basis, again, is my existential condition, the Gospel and faith.

On The Outsider Test of Faith My basic point here is that while Loftus claims Christians should turn the sword of  decision  upon themselves, Loftus and the rational atheists should do the same and reverse their bias toward rational atheism.

Yes, there is bias in the world. There is such a thing as a cultural or social Christian, but there is also such a thing as a cultural or social atheist, particularly in modern or post-modern Anglo-American culture, where analytical philosophy dominates with a presumption that evidence must be objective and that the objective is superior to the subjective.   In continental philosophy, where there has been a philosophical focus on the phenomenological, the subjective and the who, not the what or why, we see a less degree of atheism and even a resurgence of theology, i.e., in French philosophy with Paul Ricoeur and Michel Henry.

So, there is such a thing as the social Christian and there is such a thing as the social atheist.   Nevertheless, social adherence to Christian doctrine does not make one a Christian.  Ever hear of the term RINO - Republican In Name Only?  Well, there are Christians in name only.   True salvation requires a radical decision or commitment, which I have described in The Gospel:  Faith, Decision and Authentic Existence.

The Problem of Evil

Also, I want to share some thoughts on the problem of evil and suffering not because I believe it bears on the reality of Christ, but because it’s something that Loftus frequently dwells on.    First of all, the failure of reason means the failure of natural theology.  One cannot draw inferences from the natural world about the character of God.  The Gospel proclaims God as entering into the world from outside the world.  He is radically opposed to the world and is counter to its ambiguity.

Nevertheless, I have posted various blogs related to the pain and suffering of our ambiguous world.    In “What is Good?” I make it clear that our definition of good does not exclude pain and suffering.  Good does not mean “no pain.”   The point is that we recognize many instances as good that include suffering.  In “Hume’s Definition of the Problem“  I explain the rational atheist’s current outlook on evil in the world as it relates to the possibility of God.  But even Hume admitted that if it could be shown that God had a good reason to allow the suffering, it would be morally permissible.

In “A World With No Suffering“  I describe what the world would look like if God had taken Loftus’ suggestion that God should have created a world without pain and suffering.   It is a a world totally devoid of faith, courage and triumph - at odds with the God of the Gospel.  (As a point of interest, you might want to check out The Christian Droog, a review of Kubrick’s meditation on the uses of evil to produce good).

And it’s interesting to note, as I did in “Sartre:  Suffering and Evil Create Freedom,” that the existential atheist believed that the Nazi occupation of France was critical in the development of authentic existence in people’s lives.

These days, the poster child of the “How-can-there-be-a-God-when-there’s-so-much-suffering-in-the-world?” crowd  is the poor little animal in the woods who seemingly has to suffer a horrible death for no good reason.   In “Animal Suffering as Collateral Damage” I note that even atheists like Sam Harris are willing to tolerate the collateral damage of children in the course of war.  Doesn’t this mean that, if God is at war, we can accept animal suffering as collateral damage?

As I said before, natural theology has been demolished, so one cannot draw inferences from nature re the character of God.   But the Gospel does speak to the high value that God places on faith.   Could we perhaps take that value and posit that an ambiguous world is necessary for faith to manifest itself?   I suggest this in my post “Incredulous Morality:   Not a Single Animal Dies in Australian Forest Fires.”

I also note in “Animal Suffering in Moral Orders” that we recognize different moral obligations depending on where a species is on the evolutionary chain.   If God is a higher order than man, is His moral obligations different from those of man’s?  Thought:  why can we not say that God is a type of Nietzchean Overman who makes His own values?   Can the Overman be criticized for his values?  No.

Finally - and by now, you should see this coming - with the demolishment of causal connectivity and the failure to ground reason - any kind of rational morality fails.   There’s simply no ground on which to base it.   And you know what that means, don’t you?  If there’s no morality, then suffering is neither good nor evil, for there is neither good nor evil.   Nietzche and Sartre are so much more the intellectually honest atheists, rather than the rational atheists.

I’m going to resist the temptation at this point of summarizing my case against “Why I Became An Atheist” because I believe there are plenty of people who will only read and attack the summary itself.  If you are really interested in knowing the truth, you will take the time to read through my posts as I have outlined them.   Hopefully, doing so will encourage you to make further inquiry yourself by reading my sources and others.

R1A