An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar

by Randal Rauser

  Randal: Cue “The Circle of Life” from The Lion King! But seriously, I share your awe at the natural world. I'd just say that my awe doesn't stop there.

  Anyway, lest I get sidetracked, let me come back to your question about religious apatheism. There is another factor evident in my view. In fact, I think this factor drives both Christian and secular apatheism. I'm thinking here of the perceived irrelevance of theological questions for daily life. There's an old chestnut that describes the discourse of academic theology as equivalent to debating the absurd and irrelevant question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

  Justin: Twelve.

  Randal: Huh? Twelve what?

  Justin: That's how many angels are capable of dancing on the head of a pin at any given time! Try to keep up.

  Randal: Ahh, I need to run to keep up with you! (Although I disagree with your answer: since angels have no spatial extension, the right answer is an infinite number!)

  Justin: More seriously, I admit to viewing some theological questions similarly. I worry that those doing theology are too often building elaborate and detailed conceptual cathedrals to make their observations fit their basic theological commitments, but they so rarely question those core commitments in the first place. But I agree that this is no reason to dismiss considering the God question in a serious philosophical way.

  Randal: Got it. However, many Christians will say the same thing about sophisticated accounts of naturalism, the philosophy most commonly associated with atheism these days. That is, they’ll accuse the naturalists of building elaborate and detailed conceptual cathedrals to make their observations fit their basic metaphysical commitment, that is, the commitment that nature, whatever that turns out to be, is all that exists.

  Justin: That's certainly fair.

  Randal: Of course; I'm always fair!

  Personally, I don't see a problem either way. It seems to me that we all start with a set of assumptions, and as we seek to understand the world in light of those assumptions we craft a theory that will accommodate all the data. To those who don't share our starting assumptions, the whole endeavor can look like an exercise in painting the target around the arrow. But the fact is that everybody needs to start somewhere. We all need to begin at a particular starting place and reason from there. And where we start will determine how we go forward.

  Justin: I can agree with you here. I just don't think that this entails that all conceptual cathedrals are created equal. Some conceptual cathedrals really are much more ornate and detailed than others.

  IS GOD AS RIDICULOUS AS AN INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN?

  Randal: True. And by the way, some defenses of naturalism are very ornate, decked out with the metaphysical equivalent of Corinthian columns and flying buttresses.

  But hey, I'm heartened that you agree theism is an intellectually serious position. If you didn’t, this conversation would probably be a lot shorter!

  At the same time, I regret to report that not all atheists agree with you. Indeed, these days I regularly find belief in God being dismissed as the intellectual equivalent of belief in an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster or garden fairies. Apparently the idea is that a Christian's belief in the Trinity is no different from a child's belief in Tinker Bell.

  Justin: In the case of the unicorn, I'm always left puzzling over exactly what shade of pink is compatible with being invisible. I suppose that their point could be that the concept of God contains a contradiction, in which case their efforts would be better served by providing an argument to that end. Cartoonish assertions don't exactly deserve much by way of response.

  Randal: Yea and amen to that. I can't count how many times I’ve met an atheist who thought merely comparing theism to something wacky like the flying spaghetti monster was some kind of rational trump card: “Bam! I win!”

  So does that mean that you don't find any contradictions in theism?! (Fingers crossed!)

  Justin: I suppose I should have been clearer here. I think there are some significant problems for the coherence of theism. Sophisticated incompatible-properties arguments are no small part of the literature in philosophy of religion, but I'm not yet convinced that an air-tight case against theism can be found among them. Often these properties (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.) just need a bit of tinkering in their definitions in order to get them to fit together conceptually. Whether or not these ad hoc defenses of theism's coherence are indicative of a less-than-noble approach to these issues is a different question.

  Randal: Fair enough. Where the invisible pink unicorn is concerned, I agree that the surface target is the alleged contradictions involved in theological constructs. The Christian ponders how God can be one and three. And the devotee of the invisible pink unicorn ruminates on the mystery of a unicorn that is both invisible and pink.

  Justin: Let's not forget Homer Simpson's famous knock-down theological challenge, “Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?”2

  Randal: Yeah, that's a real brain buster! Believe it or not, I use Homer's question as an illustration when I lecture on the divine attribute of omnipotence to my seminary students.

  But if apparent contradiction is the surface target of the invisible pink unicorn meme, I suspect that the ultimate or deep target is the credibility or intellectual seriousness of theological enquiry itself. Just as we would dismiss any sophisticated philosophical defense of an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster as absurd, so the objector dismisses any defense of the Judeo-Christian God.

  Justin: Right. These points can seem rhetorically powerful but, in my opinion, fail to say anything interesting.

  Randal: I do think these objections at least reveal something interesting about the objector's attitudes. It seems to me that the point of comparing God to whimsical beings like fairies, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus is more specific than merely poking at the alleged absurdity of theism. In the case of these particular comparisons, I suspect the point is to suggest the arrested intellectual development of theists by comparing God to a fanciful belief from childhood. So it goes like this: there was a time when most children believed in beings like Santa Claus, but when they grew up they put away childish things. Likewise, when people are ready to grow up intellectually, they put away the childish belief in God. So theists are like Linus still clutching onto his baby blanket.

  Justin: Unfortunately, you’re probably right about that. Some people actually believe that no intelligent adults are capable of holding theistic beliefs. And, well, let me be unequivocal in saying that, not only do these people have a profoundly simplistic understanding of human psychology and the ways we form beliefs, but their theory is pretty much destroyed by the evidence of many adult theists at all levels of intelligence.

  Randal: That's for sure. Just to underscore that important point, consider the case of Aksel Hallin. Dr. Hallin is the Professor and Canada Research Chair for Astroparticle Physics at the University of Alberta. In the 1990s, he was on a team working at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, and the work of that team was recognized in 2015 with a Nobel Prize. As it turns out, Dr. Hallin is also a member of my church. I know many brilliant adult Christians like Dr. Hallin. But I’ve never met a brilliant adult who believed in Santa Claus, let alone an adult believer in Santa who occupied a research chair in physics.

  So the differences are glaring. And that raises the question: why do you think these caricatures persist among atheists?

  Justin: Hmm, good question. One reason for their persistence might be that unsophisticated ways of justifying theistic belief are popular and very much related to having an unsophisticated concept of theism. Atheists living among theists with unsophisticated methods and concepts will likely be addressing the same unsophisticated concepts.

  Randal: So, if I understand you, the idea is first that people who have a simplistic understanding of God also tend to have a simplistic grasp on how to justify their belief
in God. And second, when atheists are regularly exposed to those simplistic theists, they respond in kind with simplistic caricatures of their own making. Is that the idea?

  Justin: Yes, I think that's right.

  It seems to me that people in such situations are likely to place the implications of the existence of God on a par with the implications of the existence of Santa or anthropomorphic spaghetti dinners. Granted, this is more of a psychological explanation of these attitudes rather than an attempt to justify the reasoning that led to them, but I think that's what we’re after.

  Randal: Got it. I agree that some popular Christian conceptions of God are ripe for the parodies that one finds among some atheists. For example, picture the Christian who prays for a good parking spot at the shopping mall on Saturday. I can understand how the idea that God intervenes in the space-time continuum to secure parking spots at the Pottery Barn for his cherished bargain-seeking, upper-middle-class suburban followers leaves Christians ripe for some parody.

  Justin: A target-rich environment to be sure. Though, to be fair, it's a bit more understandable if we’re talking about finding a parking spot on Black Friday down here in the States.

  Randal: Granted, that would be evidence of divine intervention.

  Justin: But, more seriously, I think it also has to do with the literature of the tradition to which they belong. According to Matthew 7:7, a part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is recorded as saying, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”3

  You may disagree with their interpretation or that it applies to parking spots or football games, but we can hardly blame them for a straightforward reading.

  Randal: Actually, I can blame folks for this kind of simplistic proof texting, this taking isolated verses out of context. In any case of interpretation, whether of the Bible or any other text, we should try to avoid extracting individual sentences from the contexts in which they are embedded. That said, I think a careful reading of Jesus's words in context precludes the common shallow and self-serving interpretations to which you refer. His promise applies to the selfless pursuit of God's kingdom, not the selfish pursuit of discounted material goods at suburban shopping malls.

  Regardless, you’re right to point out that this kind of simplistic, self-interested reading is not uncommon in the church. The problem, as I see it, is that too often atheists make the leap from parodying some crude form of Christianity or theism to parodying theism itself. And that's where the atheist gets into trouble because you don't judge an idea by its weakest examples. That's nothing more than the strawman fallacy, in which a position is rejected based on weak exemplars of the position.

  Justin: It's certainly true that hasty generalizations are never wise.

  Randal: Never ever? Wait a minute. Did you just make a hasty generalization? Heh heh.

  Justin: I was wondering if you were going to catch that one. Well done.

  HOW DO YOU DEFINE GOD?

  Justin: It seems to me, then, that before we can make a case for the importance of the question at the center of this book we should say something about what we mean by God here.

  Randal: Excellent observation. Here we are, engaged in a conversation of God with no definition yet on the table!

  Justin: For various reasons, both historical and philosophical, not all God concepts are taken equally seriously. In the Western world, at least, it's classical theism that reigns supreme.

  Randal: I think you’re right that in academic discussion classical theism is the go-to definition and the one we should assume as well.

  That said, I suspect not everybody knows what classical theism is. Nor should we assume that we mean the same thing by it. Heaven forbid we should waste any time talking past one another. So let's start here: how do you define classical theism?

  Justin: At least as I’ve understood it, classical theism assumes a nonphysical agent (God) who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Now, as we’ve already hinted at, the precise nature and implications of these attributes leads to some disagreement among theologians. Once one aspect is clearly defined, it may have inescapable effects on attributes elsewhere. But, at least for now, noting these basics should suffice.

  Randal: I agree with your working definition, so far as it goes. But perhaps I can unpack it a bit more.

  As you point out, God isn't a physical thing, and so he is not made of matter. Note that I just referred to God with the male-gendered pronoun he. Let me hasten to add that this does not mean that God is more like a man than a woman. Rather, this is a reflection of the limitations of English, which lacks a personal nongendered pronoun. (The impersonal gender-neutral pronoun it is not a good option when referring to God because we don't refer to a person as it, and in classical theism God is a person.) So while I will refer to God with male-gendered pronouns, we can just treat that as a linguistic convention, one which is borne of the limitations of the English language.

  Justin: Well, I would argue that the tendency to use the male-gendered pronouns when referring to God is not just a limit of language.

  After all, in the literature for the Abrahamic religions (Bible, Qur’an, etc.), God is usually referred to with male-gendered pronouns. Somebody of that tradition could hardly be blamed for assuming that God is a male because God is seen as a father rather than a mother. These patriarchal assumptions within the literature will unavoidably influence the institutions built around them. In the Catholic Church, priests are referred to as father, whereas women are not permitted to take on the priesthood. But, even if a gendered view seems suggested by some theistic traditions, it is certainly not necessary to the core concept of theism.

  Randal: Okay, but there is plenty more data to consider before we conclude the biblical portrayal of God is patriarchal. For example, keep in mind that Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that men and women are equally made in the image of God. Man is not more godlike than woman. Moreover, the Bible includes many descriptions of God in female, and specifically maternal, terms, as in Deuteronomy 32:18 and Isaiah 66:13. I will agree that unfortunately the church has often downplayed these important female and maternal themes. But if we keep them in mind they definitely help counterbalance the tendency toward patriarchy.

  Justin: To shake up the cultural assumption of God as a male, I often will use female-gendered pronouns.

  Randal: Fine by me. Shake all you like!

  Anyway, one thing that is clear from this discussion about pronouns is that God is understood to be a person or an agent. It's worthwhile saying a bit more here, too. For God to be a person/agent means that God has a mind, he's conscious, and he can act with intentions or purposes.

  You also described God as having three great attributes: he is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good).

  Justin: Right. Well, at least as God has been traditionally defined.

  Randal: Yes, and I agree with all that. But let me add one more important point. We also want to keep in mind that God is a necessarily existent being. In other words, God could not fail to exist. Philosophers and theologians sometimes describe this property as independence or aseity. This means that God exists in himself. There is nothing outside God to explain his existence.

  While I don't believe you can find all the divine attributes in the Bible, I do find divine aseity suggested, if not clearly taught, in several passages. Consider, for example, Paul's words to the Athenians as recorded in Acts 17: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.”4

  It's really important to underscore necessity or aseity in our definition because it reminds us that God is the end of the explanation. When folks miss this fact, all sorts of confusion can result. For example, I’ve often heard atheists object to the notion of appealing
to God as the explanation for the existence of the universe by retorting, “What caused God?” But that kind of objection is a complete misfire because it shows the objector doesn't understand that the cause being invoked is necessarily existent. If God exists, it makes no sense to ask what caused God.

  Justin: It might also be worth mentioning here that many atheists, myself included, also believe themselves to be committed to some form of a necessarily existing stuff, whatever that might be. One reason for thinking this is that absolute nothingness in the philosophical sense seems like an impossibility. If that's true, then it is necessary that something must have always existed. For largely the same reasons as you’ve expressed above, these atheists view questions like “Why is there something rather than nothing?” as confused.

  Randal: Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with you that those things are equal. There is a fundamental difference between thinking, as you do, that some kind of substance exists in every possible world and thinking, as I do, that one particular substance, God, exists in every possible world. Agreed?

  Justin: That is true.

  Randal: Okay, so then let's summarize our definition going forward so we can finally get into some rip-roaring debate. We’ve agreed that God is a necessarily existent nonphysical agent who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. That certainly doesn't say everything a theist will want to say. But it is good enough for our discussion to get going.

  Justin: Okay, great. If that's the definition of God we’re going with, I will, for the remainder of our exchange, define atheism as the belief that there is no God. I also want to supplement this definition, for the sake of our exchange, with the additional claim that there are no other supernatural entities capable of creating or otherwise interacting within the natural world.