Conversation Killer

I have to be honest. I don't understand this line of reasoning: "If you don't agree with me, you are either intellectually dishonest or just stupid." If I was talking about "2+2=4", perhaps I'd understand, but I'm talking about whether or not there is a God. And far too often the view of the atheist is that thinking people cannot rationally conclude there is a God.

There are several interesting aspects to this line of reasoning. One is obvious to anyone who has ever tried to ask an atheist to prove there is no God. The response is almost universal: "You can't prove a negative." While this statement isn't entirely true, I do appreciate the difficulty in proving a negative. To prove there is no God, you'd have to know everything ... which would make you God. Okay, too far, perhaps, but you see the problem. As long as there is something you don't know, there could always be "God" lurking in there. And, of course, you have to factor in the bottom-line premise that God is supernatural, meaning that He doesn't reside in the natural world. Some atheists have tried to prove there is no God by showing that there is no scientific measurement of God. That's like saying, "This voltmeter can't measure sound, so there is no sound." Natural means of measurement cannot measure the supernatural. Most intellectually honest atheists that I have met, known, or been friends with will tell me that their position is not that there is no God, but that they believe there is no God. Some have couched it in these terms: "If there is a God, it is not possible for humans to know it." This points to the problem of "If you don't agree with me, you are either intellectually dishonest or just stupid." If, as we are often assured, you cannot prove a negative, then on what basis is certainty that there is no God offered?

Another interesting thing in this reasoning is in the area of atheism in general. A few years ago my son was told to write a paper on something which he doesn't believe. The idea was to get him to examine ideas he wouldn't normally examine because he rejected them. Interesting exercise. Since he is a firm theist, he chose to write about the arguments in favor of atheism. He found the research grueling. It is possible to find lots of arguments against the existence of God (specifically, the Christian God), but to find arguments for the lack of existence of God was really difficult. The atheist can tell you why he or she doesn't believe that God exists, but there are no arguments for the non-existence of God. The arguments are simply reasons why they think the theists are mistaken, not why there is no God. Yet, if you argue for the existence of God (as in "give reasons"), you are "either intellectually dishonest or just stupid" even though the apparently "intellectually honest and bright person" can offer few arguments for his position.

We Christians often couch our arguments in terms of what is good. "What good does atheism offer?" I asked the question myself. We need to be cautious, however, because we cause ourselves problems when we argue "It's better to believe a comfortable lie than to allow an uncomfortable truth." Still, I think that it is entirely possible for a person to think logically and rationally to the conclusion that there is no God. I am quite certain of the human ability to think logically and rationally ... to the wrong conclusion. I think that atheism has nothing to offer mankind. I think that Christianity has much to offer mankind. My preferences aside, I would hope that it would be possible for people with differing opinions to avoid such nonsensical prejudices as "Those who don't agree with me are either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid." I don't think that's the case of those who disagree with me. I would hope that those who decide to discuss differences of perceptions with me would offer me the same charity.