Expert: Tyler Eldred (formally known as DarkBlue) - 7/8/2008

Question
Hola!

My name is Elyssa, and i have a friend [who is an athiest] of whom i am very concerned. Concluding that you're a believer, can you give me any tips to combat any arguments he may have concerning a Higher Power?

Thankz a Bunch!

Answer
Hi Elyssa,
 I am indeed a believer and I would love to help you with a variety of advice and resources on the topic of a believer's approach toward an atheist. My response to you will have 5 sections in it. Section I will be an introduction, section II will be a discussion of the nature of an atheist and what is the best way to facilitate their conversion, section III will be about the importance of one's actions in revealing your faith to your friend, section IV will be about look at theological arguments for the existence God, and section V will look at some common atheistic viewpoints towards the existence of God, and how to address them. For this specific discussion of combating with arguments concerning a Higher Power that you asked about, section IV and V will probably have the most useful information, while the first three sections concern the greater issue of changing an atheist's mind about God.

Section I- Introduction

 I first and foremost must say that it is a wonderful thing that you have such concern for your friend. To have passion for the soul of the unbeliever is pursue the same apostolic mission as Christ and his disciples. Such a viewpoint is a spiritual one and not a worldly one, and our world is in great need of such convictions these days. I would encourage you above all things to not despair, neither for yourself or for your friend, for although the very existence of an atheist can cast uneasiness in our hearts, this doubt of ours is a frontline of our faith, a faith that is rooted in our love and trust in our God. And so in the face of this particular matter of darkness take courage that it is Christ Almighty who is our light.
 Now when it comes to both the defense our faith and the illumination of our faith, we cannot do it ourselves and indeed need to trust in God. In encountering people of other faiths, we should therefore pray constantly and fervently for God to be with us in our hearts, thoughts, and words, and for us in turn to be with Him. And now if we have decided that we need God’s help, in addition for asking for it, we need to allow Him to help us. So set aside the time, to let Him help you with these matters, in prayer, in contemplation, and in study, with our God.

Section II- The Truth about Atheism

 The typical claim of the atheist is that he or she, through superior reasoning or sense, or at the very least, through his or her own experiences and feelings, has arrived at a conclusion that God does not exist. And so most see it as a matter of intellect, and that the question of whether or not God exists is something that can only resolved by debates and discussions, by the use of logic, evidence, and other such things that pertain to the intellect only. It is certainly true that it can be resolved that way, but it is also a matter of the heart. Firstly, I will point out that there are different types of logic, and so we cannot trust that a logic conclusion is always a correct one. I also say this because if their hearts were ready to embrace and believe in love, then all this matter of arguments and proof would give way to how they feel inside. After all, most atheists will tell you that it not only logic but belief that constitutes their atheism. One could even say that it was because of their doubt, fear, and mistrust that they began to get these atheistic arguments in their head, as if to justify how they felt. But in the face of the miraculous love of our Father, we must believe that it is possible for such hearts to be moved, and indeed it is something that I have witnessed myself. At the same time, however, we should note the very real effect of these atheistic arguments. Someone who isn't really sure what to believe may have been caught unawares by a particularly convincing atheistic argument and therefore become an atheist. Also, someone who would otherwise be thinking about converting would hesitate unless his atheistic understandings of the world were shown to be false or lacking and a feasible or undeniable religious argument was made apparent. So our battle against atheism is on the frontier of both the heart and the intellect, though most atheists will only acknowledge the intellect.
 So should we can only debate, because that all they want to do? No. Should we say that we refuse to debate and we should focus only on the heart? No. What we can say is that in pursuit of the souls of men, we should leave no stone unturned, and try to reach them any way that we can. Now obviously in your interactions with your friend, not everything you do together will be debating about religion. But it is simply that if God is a part of who you are, then it will naturally become part of the conversation. And don't be afraid to be honest about your faith, if you doing something for the glory of God, then simply say so. In other words, you don't need to be showy about your faith, just involved in it. A good articulation of how someone can illuminate their faith is in the beginning of Psalm 105. Here is one way to interpret the first seven verses:
1. When God has blessed you, acknowledge it.
2. Give praise and glory to God in what you do.
3. Pursue God and His ways with joy, gratitude, and enthusiasm.
4. Depend on Him as fully as possible.
5. Consider how you have been blessed.
6. Know how you got to where you are now.
7. Love God over everything else.
Notice that these things do not necessarily require words, but if they are followed, could provoke a conversation, and do not worry, such conversations will inevitably come.
 In all your encounters with this person, do not draw lines between you and this person, and in your conversations do not be vicious or aggressive in your arguments, but friendly and teacherly. For no person has ever converted to a religion without feeling as though they belong there first, and the atheism of a person thrives on their perceptions of rejection and isolation. Do not act as if he or she incapable of love, for God's grace was such that He ate with sinners. If there is something you would encourage that person to come to, do not exclude them from it just because of their beliefs, but simply  say both that you thought they might appreciate it and you understand if they don't want to go. Obviously, you can acknowledge their atheism and use your best judgment, but do not let his or her atheism be an excuse to cut them out of such opportunities. Finding some way to regularly expose them to religion might be a good idea, such as a youth group, some sort of volunteer activity, or even a regular time that you both choose to set aside just to talk about each other's perspectives. Now outside of day to day activities and conversations, there exists the dynamics of a virtuous life and formal argumentation.

Section III- Gospel by Example

 When it comes to this change of heart, the true core matter of whether or not someone believes in God, I believe that by far the best thing we can do to change someone's heart is to be a show God through your actions. An atheist by definition underestimates religion and insofar as this person has rejected God and His ways, they are hungry for the true Peace that Christ brings to our hearts. And so nothing is more impressive then the Glory of God revealed through man, and the language of Love speaks to us in ways incomprehensible in human speech. Take for instance God's calling of Matthew. Matthew was a tax collector, among the most disreputable of positions at the time, and Jesus' intellectual argument insofar as it is reveal in the gospels consists of two words "follow me." From this I conclude that it was simply the righteousness in everything that Jesus did that compelled Matthew to obey, not merely the intellect of His words. And in truth, I have met people whom I saw saturated with the virtues of Hope, Mercy, and Humility, all who have been monumentally encouraging for me and my devotion to God.
 And so, pursue virtue and stay vigilant in your faith in all that you do, in order to reveal the goodness and salvation that God has worked through you. Such righteousness is not a verb nor an adjective, but rather the person of Jesus Christ, whom we meet in prayer and scripture. But so that you know what such a thing looks like, here are some sections that help me to understand it: Matthew 5-7, 1 Corinthians 13, Colossians 3.
 Other than acting as living proof of the success that God has had in transforming your life and revealing the goodness of God and His works, the determination of your soul can also be compelling. Everything that you give up for God's sake shows how much you adore Him beyond the things of this world, every hardship you bear because of Him shows what you are doing for Him through faith, and the humbleness and humility of your actions show regard for a God that an atheist does not.

Section IV- Theological Argument

 Though an atheist often uses logic and reason to justify his or her beliefs, our own beliefs can be supported and justified through such things as well. Indeed our God is a rational one, and as Christians we believe that the most logical, wise, and intelligent of perspectives is a religious one. There have been some arguments for the existence of God, and many other justifications of faith and theological arguments that utilize reason. I will discuss a couple of the ones I find to be most effective.
 St Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century theologian and philosopher who wrote a book called Summa Theologica in which he had a section called "Five Ways" which provides five simple arguments for the existence of God. A summary of the argument can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae and the full text can be found at http://everything2.com/title/thomas%2520aquinas The most commonly used of these five arguments is the third one. It basically says "something could not have come from nothing, so there must have been something that has always existed and that's God." To answer this atheists will typically say either a) that there was no first cause, or in other words, that the universe has always existed, and therefore nothing created it, or b) that arbitrary forces of randomness occured so that nothing and nothing eventually became something. To counterargument "a" we could say that even if the universe has always existed in time, there still needs to be a reason that it does exist at all. Most atheists say to this "it just does." If they say that, then way they are talking about is the same as argument "b." Argument "b" admits to a certain power that accounts for the universe, and to this we must ask what accounts for that power.
 The answer to this from both the atheist and the believer is that this power accounts for itself. The believer has the advantage that the resurrection of Jesus already depicts that whom cannot be defeated, while the atheist would have to rely on some sort of scientific or theoretical example that sounds more secular. From there a discussion could branch about what is the nature of that which endures and justifies itself, which in the context of a discussion of ideals and morals might lead to a conclusion that which is noble and honest and righteous is more substantial, more independent, more victorious, and more enduring than anything else. The advantage of the believer can also be strengthened by an investigation of how each person feels about the world. If we live in a world that contains meaning, intelligence, moral integrity, and free will, then we must conclude the cause of these things is at least a great as these things. Thus the more the atheist wants to downplay the nature of these supposed self-substantial arbitrary forces, the more they have to downplay life and indeed the nature of their very self. And if the world contains any meaning, nobility, truth, and consciousness, there must exist some external Creator that contains or knows of these qualities. You might even say the very fact that these concepts are intelligible to us points to the fact that they exist. The big problem in the strength of this argument is getting the atheist acknowledge things like meaning, and truth, and goodness.
 200 years earlier there was another theologian and philosopher name St. Anselm who wrote something that would later be called the ontological argument for the existence of God. An ontological argument is an argument that doesn't rely on any evidence. A summary is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm.27s_argument and the text is here http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html#CHAPTER%20II The argument goes like this: We as a society can grasp the concept of the greatest conceivable being and if this being really is the greatest conceivable being, then it must exist, because it would be greater if it existed. In my opinion this argument is basically a zoom in on what the nature of that which must necessarily exist would be, because to me that which exists must that which is good and perfect, and vice versa. It seems like a trick, the way that it is set up. I prefer to simply look at the fact that we have understanding of all sort of concepts, like hot and cold, good and bad, light and dark, so that if we have concepts of  these, we must be describing something that we know of that represents that contrast: us and God. This argument is similar to one that C. S. Lewis makes in his book Mere Christianity.
 An argument that I have developed is basically a combination of St Thomas Aquinas' and St Anselm's arguments. It goes like this: there are two types of questions that you can ask about an object in order to justify that it exists which are "how" or "why." When you ask "how" you mean to say ask what are the littler aspects of this thing that make it up and thus contribute to its existence. Thus you ask "how" concerning a clock and you get an explanation of the tiny gears and levers, as well as the properties of the metal, and the laws of physics. When you ask "why" you mean to ask what larger systems or dynamics are responsible for the existence of a thing. Thus when you say "why" concerning an apple, you get an explanation of a tree, and in addition to the larger plans of man that allow that tree to grow and that apple to cultivated. In order for this justification to be substantial, the thing that explains that which you asked about must be more real than the thing you asked about, because if it was just as real or less it would be an insufficient justification. Now, if you started with one thing in this world and you kept asking these sorts of questions (as indeed you would be able to do if they do exist), then eventually you could get both the ultimate thing that explains why the world exists, and the fullest articulation of how something could be. Since both of these things are the most realist possible and highest level of existence and explain everything else, these two must be the same. And so this thing, which is realer than anything in this world and justifies all other things, is God. A counter argument exists that says that if God is more real than anything else, then why isn't it obvious to everyone that He exists. My first response to that is that if people knew everything about God they would have to worship Him in a way that He deserves, but since they do not want to worship Him in this way, they close their heart to them. My second response is that in the universe of deception depicted in Christianity, that which exists is not necessarily that which is most easily perceivable by the senses. After all, what is real, virtue or vice? Do not sinner and saints differ on their response to that question?

Section V- Atheistic Viewpoints

 Because of hardness of hearts, many people will always find a way to reject a theological argument. More useful, however, is ensuring that a justification that an atheism may be leaning on no longer seems like firm ground. This, at least, will open them up the matter of religion. The critics on belief in God are numerous amongst atheists, and many will still maintain them to be a valid critic even when properly defended, simply because they don't understand, but it is important to try to patiently explain them why you believe what you believe and how this could be so.
 The most common of all atheist arguments is called "the problem of evil." It goes like this "if God is good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, how can He in His goodness know of evil and not stop it?" Most believer simply say the two word phrase "free will" and be done with it, but typically this concept is insufficient in the eyes of an atheist for justifying evil. It is, by the way, because of free will, but let's take a closer look at it. Evil is that which is not God, not of God, and does not (at least by its own intent) lead to God. Free will allows us to choose to follow God or not follow God, and if we choose not to follow God, then we are capable of evil, which allows for the existence of evil in the world, but even this evil is defeated by the superiority of God's plans and His ability to make good out of a bad situation, and the beautiful grace bestowed upon us with His Death and Resurrection that gave us a second chance to follow Him. There are three critiques to this response. The first is that there seems to be thing we would call evil that don't seem to have anything to do will free will, such as natural disasters, the second is that evil that free will causes doesn't seem worth it, and the third is that if God were really all-powerful, be would be able to find a way to give us free will without evil. The first can be solved by looking at what is evil. Yes, there is pain, suffering, and death in this world, but is that really evil compared that which is contained in the heart of murderer or rapist? It is true that there these things are bad, but the bad we are talking about is really of a separate thing. For just because it is something we don't want doesn't mean that it is necessarily evil. Discipline, for example, is good, for the more pain we feel in the discipline, the less disciplined we are. Also, since people do not like such thing as sickness and famine, it allows for the righteous to care for them and remove those sufferings, which shows them a good which is greater than anything in this world. Indeed, if there is not enough in the world, perhaps it is only so we can learn to share, and be united in mutual compassion for one another. For if we are able to give of ourselves, as Jesus did, that is greater than simply good feelings, and there is no love greater than laying one's life down for our friends. The second can be addressed in that for the patient and faithful, there is no ground that evil can appear to be gaining that will not be lost in time. For Christ has emerged victorious over death, and He is in control of all things, so there is no evil that stand a chance against Him on His infinite and eternal victory. The third can be addressed by saying that although God can do all things, he only does what is good. He does not, therefore contradict Himself, so if free will is good, then its goodness by definition must include the ability to choose evil or good, such that He would keep that particular quality. A final counter argument to this "problem of evil" comes from a person named Adams whose article I cannot find on the internet. It goes like this: God would not necessarily have to make the best possible word in order for Him to be doing good in doing so, because a) no creature can suffer so much would be better if it were not born and b) the world could not be made better without somehow changing the creatures that live in it.
 Many atheists will try to make evolution an argument for the non-existence of God. They might say that evolutionary evidence proves creationism wrong and that intelligent design is unnecessary extension of evolutionary theory. What the believer could say, however, is this: "I don't know how God did it, but I believe that He did create the world. Evolutionary evidence, in my mind, provides one possible explanation of how He did it, but does prove anything that would suggest that God could not have created it that way." Note, for example, that the concept being formed from the clay of the earth seems consistent in concept with the theory that we evolved from amino acids, but God making us in His image and breathing life into our nostrils supports our conviction that man is not just a material creature. This non-material component of man would by definition not show up in physical evidence.
 Another common atheistic viewpoint is called skepticism. Skepticism is a philosophy that comes in varying degrees, but the one common in atheism is one where an atheist does not believe or acknowledge the possible existence of something that cannot be proven with hard evidence. To this I simply say that I believe without knowing fully why I know what I believe, but I do so so strongly that I later use the things of this world to try to explain it, though physical evidence of this world as proof is not necessary. Another way of articulating this is to say that I can claim, that it is known by me in a non-physical way that God exists, but because people do not have the courage and faith to believe as they should, it is not as obvious to us as it should be. But because of the faith I do have, when people say that God does not exist I cannot consider their argument without feeling as though they are missing something important, just as if they were talking about someone as though that person were not in the room. This points to the larger question of "what is physical evidence that you can trust that and nothing else?" And finally, the matter of proof is not so much in whether or not we can see God right now, but rather in the testing of the hearts. For the saving power of the love of Christ has already been tested by the lives of the great saints and martyrs, and not to mention Jesus' the physical resurrection from the dead. While these responses might cast some doubt in the person's viewpoint, they are mostly just explanation of how a person can have faith without proof. There is not much you can do to with a skeptic viewpoint except for maybe use an ontological argument unless they start to believe in something other than hard evidence.

I hope I was helpful to you, Elyssa, ask any further question that you have if you wish, and I will be praying for you.