Response to an Atheist

[Gregory Matthews]

I was recently asked to view a video in which Christopher Hitchens took part in a panel (no SDAs) discussion of atheism.  Mr. Hitchens is very active in promoting atheism.  I know fairly well the person who asked me to review this video and to comment on  it.  My response follows.  To protect privacy purposes, I have edited out any personal references that I made in my response.  I am posting my response, not because I believe it to be perfect and not because I believe that it would fit for everyone.  It was tailored to the individual who asked me the question.   Read it and if you find anything helpful, good.  If not, so be it.

 

NOTE:  I had made a previous response in which I had discussed the idea that what happens in life may not be attributed directly to either God or to Satan.  Much that happens is simply random.  So, that part is not in the following response.

*** **** *** *** ***

I have viewed the entire video that you suggested I see and I will share with you some of the thoughts that it has stimulated in me:

As is probably typical of such discussions, people were all over the map as to the questions that were asked.  In one sense, I will suggest that the major, fundamental question was largely ignored.  I will divide the discussion into two (2) categories.  In doing so, I will place many of the comments/questions into the 1^st category and I will list the major, fundamental question as # 2:

1)    What is, or should be the place of religion and its beliefs in the life of society today?

I once spent a year working with a large group of people who were all infected with the HIV virus.  These included men, women and youth.    Most were adult homosexuals.  Some were not.  Some homosexuals were celibate and others were not.    Some were members in Christian denominations (to include SDAs) others were not.

Out of this experience, my convictions on society were firmed up.    I gained a greater sensitivity in understanding how civil rights should be considered in a homosexual community.  This included the idea that all humans should have a basic core of civil rights available to them that do not distinguish and divide them into groups that differ  in the rights granted to them.

It is out of this that I came to my understanding that from a practical standpoint, homosexuals should be granted the right of civil marriage on the same basis as anyone else.

In actuality, this thinking on my part is grounded on my theological basis which says that God has given all the right to choose in many areas of their life.    I see civil government as having the obligation to ensure that all have basic civil rights and that all share in those rights equally.  This then is balanced by the right of the Church to teach, advocate and inform people as to the choices that they should make in many areas of life, to include that of marriage.

IOW, in society, the Church should have the right to proclaim that within its boundaries, marriage is only between a male and a female.  But,  society may say that those who choose to live differently may also have the right to do so.

I have mentioned one example of my thinking of the role that the Church should play in society.  It should co-exist with the civil government.  It should have a role to advocate for and inform in a manner that civil government should (can) not do.   People have a God-given right to make  choices.  Those choices must be respected.

2)    How is it that evil, disaster, pain & suffering, etc. can exist in a world in which God is said (believed) to be all powerful.  And, what does this say about the character of such a God?

I consider this to be the fundamental question.  All to often it is asked in the context of personal pain---illness, disability, death of a loved one, etc.  In this context, there is no  intellectual response that is satisfying.  It is not helpful to attempt to supply an intellectual response.

I am at a place in my life where I sometimes look for answers to the so-called meta-story.  This is a major theme  that serves as the structural skeleton for a larger development.

I will attempt to share briefly with you what I see as a meta-story that provides the groundwork of the answer to this fundamental question.  It is what I see and understand.  I do not expect that you will see and understand it in the same manner that I do.  But, For me, it provides the best answer.  I will reference one, and only one, Biblical passage which I think supports this meta-story, and then develop it as I see it.

Genesis 3:4 (NIV) says in part:  “. . . God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,. .. .”  and the 6^th verse says in part:  “ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was . . . desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. . . .”

Let us look at the context of this story for a minute.  Here the man and the woman, Adam and Eve, are described as being placed in a perfect world in which everything was beautiful and met all of their needs.  They must have looked out on that world with great wonderment.

Now, they (actually both are at fault) are told that they can have the power to change and create this great world into whatever they want.  They can make it even better.  All that they have to do to obtain that power is to take and eat of the fruit.  NOTE:  This is quite symbolic.  This is the meta-story that underlies this.

I will suggest that these brief few verses give the key to the fundamental issue.  That issue is whether or not human beings would chose to live in a world that has been created for them by God, or whether or not they would choose to live in a world that they have created for themselves.

God, as I understand God, gives freedom of choice to all.  Ultimately all who make the choice to live in a world that God has created will be able to do so.  Those who choose to live in a world that they have created will not be forced to live in a world created by God.

As I see it, the pain and suffering that exist in the world today is simply the natural outworking of a choice made those many years ago by those humans to attempt to create their own world, life and existence.  That created life and existence is doomed to fail.  It will be seen that humans cannot create a better life than had been intended for them by God.  The ultimate consequence of that choice will be oblivion and going out of existence for eternity.  No, as you know, not an eternal torment.

I do not expect you to convert to my way of thinking.  But, I take seriously your sharing that video with me and I am simply responding to it with where I am and how I approach this fundamental question:  God is all powerful.  But, God has given humanity the power to choose.  That choice has consequences.  We are reaping the consequences of a choice to go it on our own in the life that we experience today.

 

[Rossw]

Just something of note. Hitchens is now deceased.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, and his videos promoting atheism are all over the Internet.

 

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Yes, and his videos promoting atheism are all over the Internet.

 

True, I suppose is atheistic spirit lives on. Dr. William Lane Craig does a pretty good job of refuting him.

[Gregory Matthews]

Can you give me a citation to Dr. Craig.  I would like to take a look at him and potentially recommend him to the person who wrote me.

 

[Rossw]

He's all over YouTube if you search his name or go here...http://www.reasonablefaith.org

He's a very good Christian philosophy apologist.

Or even J.P. Moreland. He's very good too. He's a philosopher too but more science related.

[Rossw]

My favorite arguments are the historicity of Jesus and the beginning of the universe. Hawking and others have tried so hard to develop a model of the universe without a beginning. If there is a beginning then something outside of time had to initiate the sequence of events. This is a huge problem for Hawking.

[Gregory Matthews]

I looked him up and found him all over the map commenting on many subjects and issues.  I just wondered if you had specific posts in mind.

 

[Rossw]

Another tough explanation for the atheist is morality. The atheistic evolutionary model leaves no room or reason for morality. We all know what is morally right and must admit it cannot come from within ourselves. If morality does not come from within bad men then it must come from outside man.

[Rossw]

4 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I looked him up and found him all over the map commenting on many subjects and issues.  I just wondered if you had specific posts in mind.

 

I don't know what would best speak to your audience. Atheists are usually by nature arrogant so going towards the explanation of the universe caters towards their mindset.

 

[Rossw]

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, thanks.  I will just have to play it  by ear.

 

 

[Rossw]

 

[Rossw]

 

[Rossw]

 

[Rossw]

Craig debates Hitchens 

https://youtu.be/4KBx4vvlbZ8

[Rossw]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I was recently asked to view a video in which Christopher Hitchens took part in a panel (no SDAs) discussion of atheism.  Mr. Hitchens is very active in promoting atheism.  I know fairly well the person who asked me to review this video and to comment on  it.  My response follows.  To protect privacy purposes, I have edited out any personal references that I made in my response.  I am posting my response, not because I believe it to be perfect and not because I believe that it would fit for everyone.  It was tailored to the individual who asked me the question.   Read it and if you find anything helpful, good.  If not, so be it.

 

NOTE:  I had made a previous response in which I had discussed the idea that what happens in life may not be attributed directly to either God or to Satan.  Much that happens is simply random.  So, that part is not in the following response.

*** **** *** *** ***

I have viewed the entire video that you suggested I see and I will share with you some of the thoughts that it has stimulated in me:

As is probably typical of such discussions, people were all over the map as to the questions that were asked.  In one sense, I will suggest that the major, fundamental question was largely ignored.  I will divide the discussion into two (2) categories.  In doing so, I will place many of the comments/questions into the 1^st category and I will list the major, fundamental question as # 2:

1)    What is, or should be the place of religion and its beliefs in the life of society today?

I once spent a year working with a large group of people who were all infected with the HIV virus.  These included men, women and youth.    Most were adult homosexuals.  Some were not.  Some homosexuals were celibate and others were not.    Some were members in Christian denominations (to include SDAs) others were not.

Out of this experience, my convictions on society were firmed up.    I gained a greater sensitivity in understanding how civil rights should be considered in a homosexual community.  This included the idea that all humans should have a basic core of civil rights available to them that do not distinguish and divide them into groups that differ  in the rights granted to them.

It is out of this that I came to my understanding that from a practical standpoint, homosexuals should be granted the right of civil marriage on the same basis as anyone else.

In actuality, this thinking on my part is grounded on my theological basis which says that God has given all the right to choose in many areas of their life.    I see civil government as having the obligation to ensure that all have basic civil rights and that all share in those rights equally.  This then is balanced by the right of the Church to teach, advocate and inform people as to the choices that they should make in many areas of life, to include that of marriage.

IOW, in society, the Church should have the right to proclaim that within its boundaries, marriage is only between a male and a female.  But,  society may say that those who choose to live differently may also have the right to do so.

I have mentioned one example of my thinking of the role that the Church should play in society.  It should co-exist with the civil government.  It should have a role to advocate for and inform in a manner that civil government should (can) not do.   People have a God-given right to make  choices.  Those choices must be respected.

2)    How is it that evil, disaster, pain & suffering, etc. can exist in a world in which God is said (believed) to be all powerful.  And, what does this say about the character of such a God?

I consider this to be the fundamental question.  All to often it is asked in the context of personal pain---illness, disability, death of a loved one, etc.  In this context, there is no  intellectual response that is satisfying.  It is not helpful to attempt to supply an intellectual response.

I am at a place in my life where I sometimes look for answers to the so-called meta-story.  This is a major theme  that serves as the structural skeleton for a larger development.

I will attempt to share briefly with you what I see as a meta-story that provides the groundwork of the answer to this fundamental question.  It is what I see and understand.  I do not expect that you will see and understand it in the same manner that I do.  But, For me, it provides the best answer.  I will reference one, and only one, Biblical passage which I think supports this meta-story, and then develop it as I see it.

Genesis 3:4 (NIV) says in part:  “. . . God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,. .. .”  and the 6^th verse says in part:  “ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was . . . desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. . . .”

Let us look at the context of this story for a minute.  Here the man and the woman, Adam and Eve, are described as being placed in a perfect world in which everything was beautiful and met all of their needs.  They must have looked out on that world with great wonderment.

Now, they (actually both are at fault) are told that they can have the power to change and create this great world into whatever they want.  They can make it even better.  All that they have to do to obtain that power is to take and eat of the fruit.  NOTE:  This is quite symbolic.  This is the meta-story that underlies this.

I will suggest that these brief few verses give the key to the fundamental issue.  That issue is whether or not human beings would chose to live in a world that has been created for them by God, or whether or not they would choose to live in a world that they have created for themselves.

God, as I understand God, gives freedom of choice to all.  Ultimately all who make the choice to live in a world that God has created will be able to do so.  Those who choose to live in a world that they have created will not be forced to live in a world created by God.

As I see it, the pain and suffering that exist in the world today is simply the natural outworking of a choice made those many years ago by those humans to attempt to create their own world, life and existence.  That created life and existence is doomed to fail.  It will be seen that humans cannot create a better life than had been intended for them by God.  The ultimate consequence of that choice will be oblivion and going out of existence for eternity.  No, as you know, not an eternal torment.

I do not expect you to convert to my way of thinking.  But, I take seriously your sharing that video with me and I am simply responding to it with where I am and how I approach this fundamental question:  God is all powerful.  But, God has given humanity the power to choose.  That choice has consequences.  We are reaping the consequences of a choice to go it on our own in the life that we experience today.

 

You've answered in a purely subjective matter which probably won't convince but actually reinforce their atheism. We must look outside of ourselves to show God. We CAN show the changes God has done in our lives after conversion but even that argument isn't really convincing at first glance to an atheist.

[Gregory Matthews]

My answer was based upon my personal knowledge of the person.  I would not generalize to  everyone.

After reading my response, a woman recognized the person and commented to me that I had done exactly what was needed at this point in time.

My personal position is:  Know your people and individualize according the  person.

No, my response will probably not convince and it is not intended to convince that there is a God.  What it is intended to do is:

1) Demonstrate that I can dialogue seriously with the person involved.  It should be noted that I attempted to address specific questions that the person had who contacted me.  I did not push my agenda.

2) Give that person a slightly different perspective than he had expected from me.

3) Stimulate further thought in that person and potentially other questions based upon # 1 above.

Will this happen?   Well, sometimes this person will wait several months before another reaching out to me with a question.  When that happens, I dialogue with that person until there is a stopping pint.  at that time I stop and wait.  The Holy Spirit is in charge.

 

 

 

 

[Rossw]

I'd have to ask specifically why your acquaintance chooses to be atheist. Of course, this particular case is none of my business but it is an important question to ask of an individual. Obviously knowing the question helps with a pinpointed answer. Is it out of anger? Then why is it God's fault for their particular issue.

[Gregory Matthews]

A  valid question that often may be helpful to  know the answer.

In this case, I believe that I am better off simply taking it as it comes to me and dealing with it on that level.

Aggressiveness on my part would be counter-productive.  Such a question, before its time might be considered aggressiveness.

I am convinced that the questions that come to me are sincere.  But, timing requires that I wait for them to come and then respond as long as the door remains open. 

NOTE:  I have just received a 2nd comment from one who knows the person who raised the issue with me.  This person has clearly told me that my response was exactly as it needed to be.

[Gregory Matthews]

The atheist to whom I sent the response posted above has read it and responded to me with the following;

Quote

 

I read your response and it is a good one.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I will now wait to see if there are any follow-up questions, and when.   They may not come for a while.

[Aliensanctuary]

One response to atheism might be the demonstration of compassion to fallen humanity. Any religion not respecting the lives, property, and rights of others is a demonic religion, even though its members may think that they are obedient to their God, a false God masquerading as the One and Only God.