On Wednesday, SHAFT met to discuss the worst arguments for atheism and against religion. We had an incredible turnout despite the poor weather (40+ people) and a lively discussion. You missed out if you weren’t able to make it. Hopefully you’ll join us for future events.
For those who weren’t in attendance, I want to briefly share a couple of the arguments that I presented at the meeting.
First, I challenged the popular belief that Jesus wasn’t a historical person and was instead cheap plagiarism of pagan gods like Horus, Mithra, Dionysus, and others. This theory isn’t new. It originated with shoddy 19th century scholarship, namely the work of James Frazer. But the theory has enjoyed a resurgence, having been showcased in several atheist documentaries, including The God Who Wasn’t There, Zeitgeist, and Religulous. Here is a video promoting a link between Jesus and Horus:
There can be little doubt that Christianity and Christendom have similarities with its pagan precursors, but the parallels aren’t nearly as striking as they’re simplistically and selectively presented by many atheists. Take the Jesus-Horus connection. Most of the supposed parallels are bunk—totally made-up. Horus was not born of a virgin (though his birth was unusual). He did not have twelve disciples. He was not crucified and resurrected three days later. And so on.
What parallels do exist aren’t very compelling, and they are found in documents that appear only after the advent of Christianity. Even “fringe” New Testament scholars like Dr. Robert Price, who thinks Jesus is a largely mythical character, rejects the Jesus-Horus connection.
Was Jesus a historical person? I think so (as per the writings of Paul). I don’t think he was the miracle-performing Savior that the Gospels make him out to be, however. And neither do I think he can be dismissed as a carbon copy of pagan gods.
Another argument I presented on at the meeting, and the last I’ll discuss here at length, is somewhat of a sacred cow among atheists. It’s the retort, “Who designed the Designer?”
This argument isn’t always invalid. I think it’s a fair response when the theist insists that all complex things require a designer (because presumably the designer would have to be complex). The argument fails, though, in other contexts–like how it was used by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, for instance. Christian philosopher and apologist extraordinaire William Lane Craig explains:
Luke over at Common Sense Atheism, who disabused me of this bad atheist argument, pretty well sums it up:
Let me be clear. I agree that “God did it” is generally a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad “explanation” for complexity or, well, pretty much anything. “God did it” does generally fail as an explanation.
But it does not fail merely because the theist has no explanation for his explanation (God). That is not the problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation.
The problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation is that such an explanation has low plausibility, is not testable, has poor consistency with background knowledge, comes from a tradition (supernaturalism) with extreme explanatory failure, lacks simplicity, offers no predictive novelty, and has poor explanatory scope.
I discussed a few other arguments. I said it’s unfair to blame all of Islam for the terrorist actions of a few, and that religion doesn’t have a monopoly on violence. I also urged caution when researching Mormonism online, because some of the so-called “anti” sites use outdated sources (like Mark Hoffman’s forgeries 
and have agendas (often conservative Christian ones) that bias their arguments.
A lot of other issues were raised at the meeting. If you were there Wednesday, please share—for the benefit of those who couldn’t attend—your thoughts about the discussion.
Jon comes down on the sensible side here, but I do want to quibble with one small point.
Does a view being featured in popular and ideological documentaries constitute a “resurgence” of the view? Just to clarify the obvious for people: Bill Maher is not a scholar. He likes to put himself forward as both a comedian and a serious intellectual, but he is certainly not the latter and may not even be the former. The God Who Wasn’t There follows a similar script as Religulous – find average Christians and make them look stupid. How profound. That many new atheists will believe just about anything that says ‘religion is stupid’ does not mean that those views are experiencing a serious “resurgence”.
Disclaimer: I’ve seen Religulous and The God Who Wasn’t There, but have not seen the Zeitgeist film (but its clip is not promising).
Nearly all biblical scholars and classical historians accept the historicity of Jesus. To cite a common example, if you think Alexander existed then you ought to think Jesus existed. One leading figure in new testament scholarship has called the mythical jesus claim “a dead thesis”. Jon’s approach is the more sensible one – call into question the divinity of Christ, not the existence of the historical person.
For those interested, one can easily find audio and video of debates on this subject, as well as the historical evidence for the resurrection. I saw one such debate back in the late 1990s, and my impression was that Craig destroyed Gerd Ludemann on the subject (note: at the time I was an atheist).
Thanks for the discussion of “who designed the designer”. I have heard about the failures of this premise and Dr. Craig does a good job of explaining why it fails. Certainly many questions remain, but we should avoid such assertions.
WIsh I could have been at the meeting.
I’m going to say something that many people are going to balk at, but my opinion is that the s- called “New Atheist” works were never meant as anti-apologetics. Whether they contain inept arguments or not, believers were never their target, and I’m constantly amazed by the odd story here and there of a devout Christian being de-converted by them. What they are, especially Harris’s and Dawkins’s works, is polemical appeals to fence sitters, the people who already don’t believe, but are also quite satisfied to stay mute about it. They don’t need to be great intellectual treatises — because they aren’t meant for intellectuals. They’re basically meant to stir the pot and create discussion — some might say create discord, and that’s probably fair. However, this leads many to conclude that the “atheist movement” (?) is anti-intellectual in nature, perhaps even demagogic. I don’t think so. There are far more serious modern atheist scholars who have written tons of stuff. You might call them “career atheists.” Go to Luke’s blog, commonsenseatheism.com for a complete list.
Agreed, Hunt.
William Lane Craig is wrong (and so is Luke, as I’ve said on his blog). Dawkins doesn’t demand an explanation of an explanation when he makes his argument. He’s demanding that those who argue for design merely on the basis of complexity remain consistent in their logic. That’s all. They are quite free to posit a “simple” designer, based on nothing whatsoever, and the argument may go on from there–but then again, that would be them “explaining an explanation,” which they claim they don’t have to do (on the basis of an entirely different argument that asserts that a designer is the best explanation for biological complexity). Craig is merely moving the goalposts in an obvious act of sophistry, and Luke fell for it.
Except its not inconsistent to believe all complex things need a designer and then not apply this to God.
This is one problem with the Atheists who want to spend a lot of time debating Theism ( which sadly is called “Religion” as if Religion is solely defined by belief in a god; By the way Atheism is not the opposite of Religion) and yet who refuses to open up a single Theology book because, to use Dawkins’s Phrase, “Theology is a non-topic”.
The problem with it is, a lot of Theologians have explicitly stated that God is not complex. And from a Scientific standpoint, if you accept (Hypothetically, go with me here) that God is a Spirit (You know, like the New Testament says and all) then God is not complex.
While this doesn’t prove God exists, and why would I try that anyway as an Atheist, if God does exist, he still has no moving parts. He’s not composed of slid mater and doesn’t have separable components. Scientifically speaking, God is simple, not complex.
So, if I were a Christian using the argument from design and someone said “But who designed the designer? If everything that is complex needs a designer, then who made God? He’d have to be more complex wouldn’t he?” I’d reply “You are a Moron. God is not Complex. God is simple”. Of course most Atheists I see online would then attack me for my stupidity because I said God is not complex, and wouldn’t really get at what it is I am saying.
But still, if God is not composed of separable components that work together to make him, and is not ultimately a Physical object with moving parts, how the Hell is he complex?
“Except its not inconsistent to believe all complex things need a designer and then not apply this to God.”
First, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Too many negatives in one sentence. It seems you are afraid to make a simple assertion, though I can’t be sure with all of the negatives.
“But still, if God is not composed of separable components that work together to make him, and is not ultimately a Physical object with moving parts, how the Hell is he complex?”
First, in order to reference an entity, you must define it.To define it as a ‘spirit’ with no physical form, you must explain how you come to such a conclusion, given everything has physical form and there are zero examples of ‘nothing’ to reference. Even vacuums have physical particles making up the vacuum.
To even allow such an empty assertion is throwing logic out the window. Everything posited beyond the assertion of a ‘meta-physical being’ (or whatever term you wish to make up) is fruit from a poisonous tree and, therefore, void.
All of these arguments as to how this atheist argument is illogical or that atheist argument lacks merit are nothing more than straw man arguments avoiding answering the obvious, simple, question of “How can someone claim to be logically consistent when they believe in a magical creator and not unicorns or leprechauns, seeing as each are based in the same amount of evidence.. none?”. You can then sit back and watch the intellectual dancing-around-the-obvious begin.
Don’t get sucked in by all of the drama and head butting. Atheists can be completely wrong in every argument and it still wouldn’t matter because we aren’t the ones making the assertion. The burden is not, never has been or will be, on us.
“Theology is a non-topic”.
Dawkins is entirely correct in this statement for the exact reasons above. Anyone claiming a magical being (or magic at all) must bring evidence to the table before any discussion of such an assertion may continue. You cannot make logical assumptions based on something you cannot even define, and you cannot define something without observation, and you cannot observe something which is not physical. Progressing beyond that road block is folly and devoid of merit.
“I said it’s unfair to blame all of Islam for the terrorist actions of a few, and that religion doesn’t have a monopoly on violence.”
It is entirely fair to blame Islam for violence created by the religion itself. Their ‘holy book’ orders followers to become violent, including murder, rape, torture and genocide. To call following the mandate of a religion which promotes all of this evil as “bad” is somehow unfair in your eyes? You may wish to rethink your moral compass.
As for “religion doesn’t have a monopoly on violence”.. so what? The fact religion encourages violence in its followers makes it worse than no religion at all. Just because there exists violence outside of religion does not make religion peaceful. The same lack of logic is often used by women to make themselves look thinner, they hand around an obese girl so they appear thin by comparison. The weight of the woman is not reduced by her proximity to the obese girl. You argue topics on their own merits, not by comparison to “it could be worse”.
Rape being arguably better than murder doesn’t make rape acceptable. Stop apologizing for evil.