The Impasse(able?) Arguments against Christianity

[theophile]

As a Christian apologist, I find I'm always confronted by the same basic arguments. This can be a bit tiring given the fact that I don't usually accept the underlying assumptions of the offender and would rather progress the conversation versus spin on things that I don't uphold and that I don't care to defend.

So the purpose of this thread, as much as I would like it to be more, is:

(1) to see if other apologists feel the same and, more importantly
(2) to start classifying the arguments endlessly raised to see if we can approach the conversation at a higher level and move it forward versus continuing to churn around in the weeds.

So that said, it seems to me that most arguments can be classified into the following four categories:

Metaphysical plausibility: These arguments tend to take as starting point certain traditional assumptions about the nature of God. That God is some kind of super-being out there, and who should therefore be observable just as anything else having existence is. Because no such God-being has ever been witnessed in any objective way, and because our understanding of reality has evolved to a point of not needing God in order to explain it, this (supposedly) basic Christian view and Christianity with it is challenged.

Moral decrepitude: These arguments would take for granted (for the sake of argument) that there is such a God-being despite the lack of evidence. The argument becomes less about the existence of such a God, but why such a God would be worthy of belief given the presence of evil and suffering in the world and certain atrocious events and teachings conveyed by the bible. This is God as tyrant. As authoring or permitting evil. As being unworthy of respect irrespective of existence.

Historical inaccuracy: Here the bible is evaluated against history, and is taken as an historical account that stands or falls depending on how it holds up to the historical record. If there never was a cataclysmic flood, then the flood story - and its teachings - is diminished. If there never was an historical Jesus who was crucified and resurrected, then Jesus' story - and his teachings - are diminished... Perhaps to the point of being fully rejected.

Logical inconsistency: The bible in itself is the focus of this type of argument, which suggests incoherence or self-contradiction of biblical teachings and therefore unacceptability. Examples of such an argument include the fact that the bible has two creation narratives that differ on certain points, or that the bible has different versions of God that seem incompatible. If the bible is itself inconsistent, who cares about any of the above? ...

Those, in short, are the types of arguments that I feel are endlessly raised. Have I missed any, or any arguments that would not fit within one of these higher level categories?

To apologists in particular, what are our responses to these higher level arguments that can at last help us move the conversation forward, and stop us from rehashing the same old debates over and over again? Or are we simply at an impasse? (In which case I truly question the purpose of this forum and what it hopes to achieve...)

Again, my goal in this is not to get sucked into details, but is an honest hope (against hope) to actually move the conversation forward, and put some of these issues behind us.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 47 by Divine Insight]

You seem to be suggesting that the reason we find ourselves reading these stories centuries later is because they are so obviously wise and clearly true.

But that's not the case at all.

Where did I suggest anything like this? I said we need to take the texts, figure out the meaning imparted in them by their authors (best we can), and then let that meaning stand or fall on its own terms. Detached from history. (i.e., we cannot devalue them on the basis that the events and individuals discussed may not match the historical record.)

I never suggested what you say here. Nor do I see how you are at all responding to what I said or providing an argument for why we cannot detach the stories from history.

How can you not see that my post #47 makes it crystal clear why you cannot detach the stories from history?

Was Jesus the only begotten Son of God sent by God into the world or not?

If so, then Jesus has to be a real historical person. If Jesus isn't a real historical person then John is a liar, pure and simple.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Notice the part I put in bold. This confirms my suspicions that you have just swapped 'God' for 'the Word'.

I have? Or John has? All you're doing is giving biblical credence to what I'm saying, which I pointed you to in the first place. And that's a good thing, right?

You pointed to that scripture to explain what the 'Word' is, thus I assume you agree with it. That scripture equates the 'Word' with 'God'. QED.

Anyways, the main point in all this is that the Supreme Being God that most atheists argue against (per the "metaphysical plausibility" category of attacks I outlined) is subtly dismantled here by John. To your point, John almost swaps this God out for the Word. (In my parlance, he black-boxed God...)

He didn't almost do it, he did it. He equated the two as being the same thing. Thus one can freely swap them if one buys into John's writing.

I don't think we're saying different things. Of course the receiver can decide what to do with it - hence my emphasis on discerning and responding. All I'm saying is that words can incite motion (which you seem to agree with). They have a subtle or soft force about them (like that language or not). Just look at my words right now, they are conveying meaning, sure, but they are also inciting feelings. Perhaps of frustration. And this in turn is inciting action. Perhaps you'll respond...

Again, it is not your words that are causing me to respond, feel, etc. It is my response to you, your intention, meaning, etc.

I am not corresponding to words, I'm corresponding to the person theophile using words. Hi theophile! Bonjour! Ça va?

Without my words that would never happen. This is the soft force I am talking about. They did not physically move you to act. But they did cause it in a more subtle way. Of course that is all on you.

I disagree. If we were in the same room together, you would be able to 'incite me to action' using no words at all if you wanted to. You could tap me on the shoulder, wave, smile, make a face after I make a comment. No words required.

Essentially, you are pulling out a word from the Bible, 'Word', and trying to explain to me what it is, but failing to concretely defined it. As soon as I managed to get you to say that the 'Word' was the Bible, you almost immediately back stepped when questioned on all the non 'Word' 'Word' therein. Is the 'Word' the Bible or not? If yes, we are done defining it. I can then take anything contained within the pages and show how some parts of this 'Word' are not consistent with other parts of the 'Word' and thus render the entire thing worthless to me. If it's not the Bible, then you have more explaining to do

Partially true. The bible is a book. As such, it is defined. Limited. Helpful but ultimately incomparable to the situations we face in our lives. The Word is something more than that. It is, again, what you are called to do in each singular moment you face to create or improve the conditions for life... I can't define it more than that unless we start looking at specific scenarios (like, what if you see your enemy beaten and dying on the side of the road?...)

And here we have you now saying the 'Word' is more than the Bible. So, is the Bible a subset of the 'Word'. i.e. is the 'Word' everything in the Bible plus some yet undefined thing? That's even worse.

The bible couldn't possibly express the Word fully.

Ok, so here you are admitting as much.

But it does sufficiently express it that we should get pretty good at discerning it ourselves throughout our lives... I could care less where the authors got their ideas from. I wouldn't give the Hebrew moral imagination a monopoly on the Word.

Yet it doesn't sufficiently express anything other than the mish mash of ideas of various ancient cultures.

Should violence be used to solve problems? The Bible says yes, so I guess so does the 'Word'.

Should we have slaves and only beat them to within an inch of their lives? The Bible says yes, so I guess so does the 'Word'.

We will now hear how some of the 'Word' is not the 'Word', but it's all still good 'Word' or something along those lines. Right?

Ok, so this would actually require some deletions from the Bible then. Unless wiping out people (the flood), other cultures (Canaanites), or simply people who try to do the right thing but break a rule (Uzzah). That's before we even get to slave beating, taking women as possessions because you won a battle, or other ridiculous actions written about in this hodge podge collection of ancient tales.

Nope. But getting way too sidebar here...

Way to sidebar? I ask you multiple times what exactly the 'Word' is and you point me straight at the Bible. I point out just a few of the many, many problems with this thing you pointed at and now we are sidebar? This brings us full circle to the point of your OP. You don't want to get 'stuck in the weeds', but sadly this theology is mostly weeds. If we can't even come to a consensus on basic definitions we will get no where. Furthering conversations requires at least agreeing on terms such that we can talk about something useful.

At this point, what I'm getting from you is that the Bible is 'the Word', but no it's not really 'the Word'. 'The Word' is more than the Bible. More what? Is there some more nonsensical stuff to tack on the already cobbled together tome that is the Bible? I doubt it's going to help unless it's a big ole container of white out.

Love your neighbor. Love life. Create the conditions for life. This is the Word in a nutshell and how I've been defining it all along.

That may have been your intention, but no, it's not how you've been defining it. I asked where I could examine the 'Word', you pointed to the Bible. I clearly showed stories from the Bible that do not have anything to do with loving your neighbor, loving life, or creating conditions for life. I clearly showed death of neighbor, exterminating innocent life, and creating conditions that clearly have nothing to do with love or encouraging life. You sidestepped.

If your 'nutshell' definition is truly the real definition, the I highly suggest pointing to some different written word to nurture your definition. The Bible quashes it and leaves one with a bad taste.

Do you know one of the key reasons I'm no longer a Christian?

I decided to 'increase my faith' by doing daily Bible reading and reflection. And I don't mean the cherry picked Bible studies that you will find in various books or Bible study groups. I mean start at page one and read the ENTIRE thing. Cover to cover. Some parts multiple times if necessary to let it sink in.

Guess what happened?

I've seen the same thing happen with others on this very forum. My new advice for Christians who want to deepen their faith is "Please don't read the entire Bible too closely."

[Mithrae]

Way to sidebar? I ask you multiple times what exactly the 'Word' is and you point me straight at the Bible. I point out just a few of the many, many problems with this thing you pointed at and now we are sidebar? This brings us full circle to the point of your OP. You don't want to get 'stuck in the weeds', but sadly this theology is mostly weeds. If we can't even come to a consensus on basic definitions we will get no where. Furthering conversations requires at least agreeing on terms such that we can talk about something useful.

At this point, what I'm getting from you is that the Bible is 'the Word', but no it's not really 'the Word'. 'The Word' is more than the Bible. More what? Is there some more nonsensical stuff to tack on the already cobbled together tome that is the Bible? I doubt it's going to help unless it's a big ole container of white out.

Love your neighbor. Love life. Create the conditions for life. This is the Word in a nutshell and how I've been defining it all along.

That may have been your intention, but no, it's not how you've been defining it. I asked where I could examine the 'Word', you pointed to the Bible. I clearly showed stories from the Bible that do not have anything to do with loving your neighbor, loving life, or creating conditions for life. I clearly showed death of neighbor, exterminating innocent life, and creating conditions that clearly have nothing to do with love or encouraging life. You sidestepped.

If I could interject briefly on an interesting discussion, I think it's possible that there has been some misunderstanding earlier in the exchange.

• Benchwarmer asked: You speak of discerning this 'Word'. Where is it that I may also discern it? Is it available on amazon? Smile
  
  Theophile replied: Yes, it's called the bible. I suggest you pick it up.

I think (and Theophile may correct me on this) that this response meant "Yes, if you want to discern the Word there is a way through Amazon; the bible will point you in the right direction" rather than "Yes, the bible is the perfect Word of God." A little snideness on both sides may not have particularly helped the exchange. Of course, Theophile did not correct that perception in his subsequent post, so maybe I'm the one who's got it all wrong

[theophile]

[Replying to Mithrae]

I think (and Theophile may correct me on this) that this response meant "Yes, if you want to discern the Word there is a way through Amazon; the bible will point you in the right direction" rather than "Yes, the bible is the perfect Word of God." A little snideness on both sides may not have particularly helped the exchange. Of course, Theophile did not correct that perception in his subsequent post, so maybe I'm the one who's got it all wrong

Yup. I thought I made it clear, but I can't make it any clearer than that!

[theophile]

[Replying to post 52 by benchwarmer]

You pointed to that scripture to explain what the 'Word' is, thus I assume you agree with it. That scripture equates the 'Word' with 'God'. QED.

He didn't almost do it, he did it. He equated the two as being the same thing. Thus one can freely swap them if one buys into John's writing.

So what I can't understand is that if God is tantamount to Word, and Words have no power or force in themselves (two things we basically agree on), then what happens to all the atheistic arguments against some Supreme Being omnipotent creator God?

You didn't answer that, which was my main question and why I diverted from any questions of morality (those being dependent on this outcome).

God as Word and God as Supreme Being are incompatible.

Atheist arguments against God as Supreme Being (and there are a plenty) are all dismantled. They fall flat.

Essentially, you are pulling out a word from the Bible, 'Word', and trying to explain to me what it is, but failing to concretely defined it. As soon as I managed to get you to say that the 'Word' was the Bible, you almost immediately back stepped when questioned on all the non 'Word' 'Word' therein. Is the 'Word' the Bible or not? If yes, we are done defining it. I can then take anything contained within the pages and show how some parts of this 'Word' are not consistent with other parts of the 'Word' and thus render the entire thing worthless to me. If it's not the Bible, then you have more explaining to do

I think Mithrae clarified this, since apparently I didn't. I have been consistently, from the beginning, defining the Word as that which calls for creating the conditions for life. Paradigmatic examples I gave (from the Bible!) being such things as "Let there be light."

I point out just a few of the many, many problems with this thing you pointed at and now we are sidebar? This brings us full circle to the point of your OP. You don't want to get 'stuck in the weeds', but sadly this theology is mostly weeds.

Like I said, I want to get alignment on the nature of God and the Word before we start talking questions of morality. But fair enough, happy to do it.

Should violence be used to solve problems? The Bible says yes, so I guess so does the 'Word'.

Should we have slaves and only beat them to within an inch of their lives? The Bible says yes, so I guess so does the 'Word'.

We will now hear how some of the 'Word' is not the 'Word', but it's all still good 'Word' or something along those lines. Right?

Details are important. But sure, violence to solve problems. Your point is that this is inconsistent with the Word as I've defined it.

To convince me of that, you'd have to show me that violence isn't in certain cases in the interests of life.

There are easy examples of where it is, but maybe you'd disagree. Let's look at Nazi Germany for instance. Was violence not called for there in order to free people from a cruel, oppressive regime?

I think so. And hence have no problem with violence in certain circumstances being fully consistent with the Word, i.e., with that which calls for us to create or improve the conditions for life.

Slavery? Here you'll note I said before that the bible isn't always perfect in what it says, especially when it comes to the law (the law itself not being originally intended nor, I would argue, part of the desired state).

The law is not the Word. I would say it is an attempt to codify the Word, and that in codifying the Word, it becomes limiting and cuts the Word off.

The law is a practical device given to a people (Israel) who were not mature enough to discern and live the Word on their own.

Hence you see things like a condoning of slavery in the law. But there is still glimpses of the Word in there. For example, perhaps in previous or contemporary cultures the penalty was death for slaves who committed certain actions. The law, which tries to codify the Word, lightens this up. It instead suggests beating the slave but letting the slave live.

I get how horrific that sounds, but that's how change happens. The Word, which you agree has no power in itself and depends on us, can't change us all at once. It needs to move us forward one step at a time.

Hence the law, which codifies the Word and shows incremental progress toward improved conditions for life.

(I would rather many small steps forward to ultimately get where I want to go versus doing nothing at all - even Lincoln didn't free the slaves in a day.)

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 23 by wiploc]

But let's look at a simple Christian proposition, that we should love each other. That the greatest among us are those who serve the lowest among us. Do you need an argument to support and to affirm such a statement? Would you call that a fake gold chain that someone is trying to push on you?

No, that's good stuff. When theists pretend that they own those ideas, that we can't get there except thru theism, then we're dealing with fakes.

I would never prescribe theism as the only way to such ideas. I would, however, propose the bible as the most radical, consistent and sustained attempt to think such an idea through that I've encountered at least.

Haven't read it. Not much anyway. My belief is that it is shot thru with absurdities, gross immorality, and logical contradiction.
Your reverence for it may be matched by my disdain.

Your view seems to put good arguments or logic in high esteem. It's a bit of twisted theology if you will (instead of theo-logy as God's-logos it is logos-as-God)...

I went and looked up "logos," but I still don't know what you're saying.

Logos as word -> reason. As logic or argument.

My point was that IF a perfect argument (i.e., logic) for God would compel your belief in God, then you've got yourself in a twisted situation where logic, not God, is your true God. i.e., it is logic, not God, that you truly believe in, and that makes other things (God in this case) believable...

This scenario defeats God, since God can't possibly be God if it takes a perfect argument to compel your belief in God. (God would be subordinated to logos.)

Still not sure I'm with you, but, since you're saying that I have defeated God, that's fine with me. Kudos to self!

If you proved something, I would believe it. That doesn't feel twisted.

It's more a question of what is it that you truly value. Is logic #1?

I'm a utilitarian, if that helps.

I don't see that atheists are less likely to love life, and I assume we're much better at finding the logic of it. So-- according to your argument--we should conclude that atheists are better Christians than Christians, right?

Same question as before. And here I would reiterate: life and love of life is the starting point. Value life above all else. The interesting question is what happens once we think that through fully... What does logic declare?

Again, I'm a utilitarian. If even one person is tormented in eternal Hellfire, then this is the worst of all possible worlds. If I could save such a person by killing him (even if that entailed killing everyone else, including your god) that would be an easy choice for me.

Some lives are filled with suffering to the extent that they are not good in and of themselves.

So, no, it is not life itself that I value.

This, again, is what I think the bible is superior at. It forces us to think this through in the hardest of situations. I don't think any atheist has ever pushed it so far. And most on this site get queasy when it comes to the hard questions.

I don't see the bible as an aid to logical thinking. And I'm skeptical about your characterization of atheists.

Like what if it was our enemy who was lying on the side of the rode beaten and dying? Or what if only 1 person on earth was good, and all the rest were bringing things down? The bible faces up to these edge cases, and follows through the life-loving logic. (While atheists argue about how immoral it is to wipe the slate clean and start things anew...)

As I said immediately above.

These are the truly hard questions where our love of life is tested and the bible is willing to push through to the hard answers.

So no, we should not conclude that atheists are better than Christians. At least not in regard to the teachings of source texts.

Some of the bible's answers seem hard because they are obviously immoral or absurd or impossible.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by theophile]

Metaphysical plausibility: These arguments tend to take as starting point certain traditional assumptions about the nature of God. That God is some kind of super-being out there, and who should therefore be observable just as anything else having existence is. Because no such God-being has ever been witnessed in any objective way, and because our understanding of reality has evolved to a point of not needing God in order to explain it, this (supposedly) basic Christian view and Christianity with it is challenged.

I find the opposition's response here to be the weakest. Aristotle's (and, later, Aquinas') argument from change is very good, and the retort from atheists, in my experience, simply betrays their philosophical ineptitude; as when they say, "Yeah, well who created God?!" As if that solves empirical problem at all!

Moral decrepitude: These arguments would take for granted (for the sake of argument) that there is such a God-being despite the lack of evidence. The argument becomes less about the existence of such a God, but why such a God would be worthy of belief given the presence of evil and suffering in the world and certain atrocious events and teachings conveyed by the bible. This is God as tyrant. As authoring or permitting evil. As being unworthy of respect irrespective of existence.

I would say this is the strongest argument from the opposition's side, and the most difficult to answer. How do we, after all, not criticize God for having entire towns destroyed? Would not a loving God have commanded the Israelites to "stand outside the city walls and sing carols until the town opened up its gates and said, 'Yes, of course, your god is obviously the real one; we will today abandon our idols'"?

Or, even better, "Hey Israelites, stay in Egypt and do hard labor; for all gods are the same."

Or, "Hey Israelites, enter Jericho and kill only in self-defense; then register all the women and children into a goodwill program. You will continue this until, well, the obvious happens (as history shows): you yourselves will get killed, but thus is life; thus is the actions of an atheist's god.

In other words, the difficulty is teaching atheists to think concretely. Most of their arguments appear to be historically contextual, but really, they have no ability to think historically. Their real problem is the far more rudimentary and philosophical problem of evil.

Historical inaccuracy: Here the bible is evaluated against history, and is taken as an historical account that stands or falls depending on how it holds up to the historical record. If there never was a cataclysmic flood, then the flood story - and its teachings - is diminished. If there never was an historical Jesus who was crucified and resurrected, then Jesus' story - and his teachings - are diminished... Perhaps to the point of being fully rejected.

This one also looms large, and historical ignorance is the culprit. I have not met a single atheist (except perhaps for one, and maybe two) here who has a clue as to how historical analysis works. If we applied the historical criteria of any single one of them to all history, we could not longer say, "Caesar crossed the Rubicon; Hannibal the Alps; Socrates was Plato's teacher, etc. etc. etc.".

Logical inconsistency: The bible in itself is the focus of this type of argument, which suggests incoherence or self-contradiction of biblical teachings and therefore unacceptability. Examples of such an argument include the fact that the bible has two creation narratives that differ on certain points, or that the bible has different versions of God that seem incompatible. If the bible is itself inconsistent, who cares about any of the above? ...

In my experience, the main "logical contradictions" launched by the opposition are moral; I haven't found on this site too many accusations on mere narrative discrepancies.

Those, in short, are the types of arguments that I feel are endlessly raised. Have I missed any, or any arguments that would not fit within one of these higher level categories?

I think this was a very good sample.

To apologists in particular, what are our responses to these higher level arguments that can at last help us move the conversation forward, and stop us from rehashing the same old debates over and over again? Or are we simply at an impasse? (In which case I truly question the purpose of this forum and what it hopes to achieve...)

I think the only one that requires real intellectual energy is the question of God's dealings in the O.T.: how does one justify God's dealings with the inhabitants of Canaan? My guess is this argument comes from Americans, or at least citizens of Democracies. They want to know, "Surely if there is a God, all he cares about is the right to pursue happiness and maintain the status quo"?

The rest are just tiresome. Teaching atheists basic logic or basic historical methodology is tedious.

[theophile]

[Replying to wiploc]

I'm a utilitarian, if that helps.

Some of the bible's answers seem hard because they are obviously immoral or absurd or impossible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a utilitarian would be okay if the well-being of all the people in the world depended on the suffering of just one. Sure, better that there was no suffering, but there is nothing wrong per se with enacting a state like that if it was the best possible result. (That feels immoral.)

The bible tends to look at other extremes. i.e., how much suffering does it take before we take drastic action to enable the well-being of others? Sure, this has it taking actions that on the surface seem immoral. Like flooding the earth, or decimating Egypt, or destroying Canaan. (Not to mention condoning evil in the hopeful patience that things can change.)

As such both can feel immoral. But biblical morality does not seem utterly opposed to your Utilitarian morality (in the end, they both want the same thing). So I can't help but ask, what is it, exactly, that is so obviously immoral?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 57 by liamconnor]

I think the only one that requires real intellectual energy is the question of God's dealings in the O.T.: how does one justify God's dealings with the inhabitants of Canaan? My guess is this argument comes from Americans, or at least citizens of Democracies. They want to know, "Surely if there is a God, all he cares about is the right to pursue happiness and maintain the status quo"?

The rest are just tiresome. Teaching atheists basic logic or basic historical methodology is tedious.

I cannot understand why it is so difficult a concept that the path to life is going to require some death. That love of life means protecting it, and doing what is necessary for it to go on and flourish. "Oh, but the Canaanite babies," the atheists will say (while also probably being okay with abortion, as if a clean line can be drawn).

There is a lack of moral imagination that prevents thinking through the radical possibilities that come through both good and evil, which maybe, just maybe, includes in the latter case the utter corruption of children and beyond this future generations. This isn't to say that we should expect to find an evil child somewhere, or that future generations are indeed 'cursed', but that the bible deals in extremes to convey its morality. Call it metaphorical, and lighten up on the literal, but by no means should we not take what it says seriously.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 49 by theophile]

Still on "the word," huh?

Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego "I say") is a term in western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion derived from a Greek word meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", "discourse",[1][2] but it became a technical term in philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BCE), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3] Logos is the logic behind an argument.[4] Logos tries to persuade an audience using logical arguments and supportive evidence. Logos is a persuasive technique often used in writing and rhetoric.

So now all one need to do it pick the Greek concept that makes logical sense in context. The word wasn't chosen to be inexplicit.