Article: Article Name
Why Can’t Atheists and God Believers Communicate?
I have been wandering the Internet for several years and read a large amount of discussion between atheists and people who believe in a God. In all that time I have noticed the same words and patterns repeated over and over with very little communication actually happening. If we are to live together peacefully (and I assume that most theists and atheists want this) then we must overcome this challenge and learn to effectively communicate.
Look at this article as an attempt to explain each side to the other. In it I attempt to explain how the believer sees the talking-points of the atheist, as well as why the believer’s attempts at conversion fail to convince heathens like me.
I like to believe that I am qualified to see the picture from both sides because I have been both a Christian Fundamentalist and a firm atheist. If you disagree then by all means use my feedback page.
NOTE: From here forward I will refer to God believers as simply believers or theists. I will also use the pronouns “he” and “him” rather than more awkward phrases like “him or her”. It should be understood that in each case the male gender is not meant to be implied and that each statement applies equally to either gender.
The Atheist’s Arguments
On the atheist’s side you will see appeals to reason, logic experiments, and displays of biblical contradiction. Often the atheist is amazed that these arguments have no impact on believers. Let’s examine why this is the case.
Why it doesn’t convince the other side.
The atheist’s arguments fall on deaf ears (which can be very frustrating,) but there are very specific reasons why each of his strategies fail. Let us examine the believers reaction to each argument in detail:
-
Appeals to reason:
The believer cannot accept the appeals to reason because they have already concluded that God exists (usually because they believe that they can feel their God in their heart) and therefore any opposing information is deemed to be faulty. -
Logic experiments:
Appeals to logic do not work because most theists feel that reason is inferior to spirituality (or at least not valid when applied to spiritual matters.) -
Biblical contradictions:
Finally, displays of biblical contradiction doesn’t sway many believers because they either don’t see them as contradictions, or when they do see them they are excused as mistranslations or clerical errors that snuck into the “perfect original” during the coping process. Furthermore, non-fundamentalist Christians, Muslims or Jews do not adhere to a literalist vision of scripture so errors in their holy texts have no bearing on their belief anyway.
In each case, the believer has faith that trumps any argument, fact or reason that may be presented. I am not sure that anything can convince them otherwise, but I hope we can have a meaningful dialog that allow us both to tolerate and respect each other. This article is an attempt to give insight and promote harmony between those that believe and those who cannot. Hopefully, it will also help believers understand why we are so offended by the current political atmosphere in America and reach a balance that promotes freedom and respect to all.
The Believer’s Arguments
When I talk to theists, I most often am confronted with arguments from experience, appeals to authority, a straw-man being torn down, or over-reaching assumptions. Frequently I am also confronted by their firm belief that morality cannot exist without a God.
Why it doesn’t convince the other side.
The believer’s arguments are just as ineffective in convincing someone like me as my message is to a “true believer.” In case a believer reads this article, here are the specific reasons that these tactics are unconvincing.
-
The straw-man argument:
For anyone not familiar with the term “straw-man argument”, let me explain what this means. The term refers to tearing down a phony effigy of your real target in an attempt to display its flaws.
In this context it involves a theist or believer stating arguments or thoughts of supposed atheists (often overly-simplified or outright wrong) and then attempting to demonstrate that atheism is wrong because these empty arguments are flawed. An example of a straw-man argument heard all too often is…
As an atheist you claim to be certain that God does not exist. To make such a statement requires you to have all knowledge possible; otherwise, God might exist within that portion of knowledge you don’t possess. This proves that it is irrational to be an atheist!
The biggest problem with these types of arguments is that very few (if any) believers understand atheists well enough to state their arguments and feelings accurately. Then they happily tear down a silly argument that no atheist makes in the first place. The atheist simply sees such an attack as irrelevant since nothing they believe or accept is disproved.
In the case of the example above, I know no atheist who claims to “know for certain” that no god of any sort exists. Instead we consider the assumption that a god exists without evidence to be a waste of time and as pointless as believing in fairies and trolls, because no one can prove they don’t exist either. The probability that any god exists is so remote and unlikely that it can be safely dismissed without evidence.
Recently a friend gave me a book by a Christian apologist written as an attempt to convert atheists. The entire book was filled with erroneous things he thought atheists believed and his arguments against them. He believed that problem that kept most atheists from converting was that many Christians appear to be hypocrites. He dedicated more than a third of his book to that thought.
Personally I know no atheists who feel that imperfect Christians prove that God doesn’t exist, so all his effort was wasted. I was astounded at how little he understood anything about me as an atheist; his entire book was nothing but one straw-man argument after another. I almost pitied the author for his ignorance.
-
Over-reaching assumptions:
In the atheist’s eyes, theists appear to be terribly prone to over-reaching assumptions. By this I mean that they often draw conclusions that are not indicated by the evidence. Be very careful when you try to debate an atheist that you do not jump to any unwarranted conclusions.
What could I mean by such statements?
Take for example the typical “intelligent design” argument where the theist tries to prove that the universe had to have been created.
According to the theist’s point of view, the complexity and order inherent in nature indicates that it was made by intelligence. Therefore (in his eyes) this complexity proves that the Christian account of creation in Genesis must be true, and by.
Whether or not nature indicates design that requires a designer is a matter of opinion; so we will skip that discussion for now. Even if the atheist could agree that nature has a design that required a designer, it still would not prove that the Christian God was the intelligence that designed it, or even that it was a god at all. It might have been designed and set in motion by highly evolved, technically advanced beings in some other universe that have learned to manufacture universes.
A “designed” universe does not in any way automatically lead to Jehovah, Allah, Krishna or any other god as a conclusion. Such a leap of logic would be like seeing a rock rolling down a hill and assuming a Bigfoot must have pushed it off a cliff without finding proof one exists first. Real evidence is required to back up such a claim before any conclusions can be reached and none appears to be forthcoming; so once again the atheist is not persuaded.
On a side note, I have had several theists ask me what proof that the Christian God created the universe would look like. An example of sufficient proof (to me) might be finding rocks on Mars, or very deep in the Earth (too deep for humans to have put them there) that once we broke them open said in perfect English “Jehovah was here!” or perhaps “Allah made this!” If we could establish that they were not man-made forgeries, then such evidence would be pretty convincing.
-
Morality and meaning flow from God:
The theist’s last-ditch effort then is to claim that morality cannot exist without a god. A very similar argument is often made that life without a god is wrong because it is meaningless and pointless.
From the atheist’s point of view this morality argument is a personal attack. Since the atheist has no god then this is the same thing as saying he is immoral and cannot tell right from wrong. Actually evidence exists that many atheists are highly moral people, and just like the religious, many are not-so-nice. From my perspective, it appears that good and bad, moral and immoral people occur with about equal frequency regardless of religious faith or lack of it. This is exactly what one would expect if there were no god.
The same response could be made against the charge that a life without God is pointless. To the atheist it is saying that he or she has no justification to go on living, perhaps even implying that they are a second-class citizen, not to be trusted and maybe even dangerous. Yet most of us are happy to get up every morning and live a fulfilling life. Big surprise that this argument isn’t very persuasive to an atheist!
In each of these examples you can see that the theist cannot communicate with the atheist because he is unable to see the world as the atheist sees it. The believer would not use any of these arguments if they could understand the perspective of the atheist.
Both Reach Frustration
After none of these exchanges appear to be fruitful then frustration sets in. Often, both the theist and the atheist sink into personal attacks and name calling that ruins any chance for communication. Once this happens there is no point in talking any longer, the connection has been severed.
The only way beyond this impasse is for both the theist and the atheist to work very hard at seeing the world through each other’s eyes.
Seeing Through Each Others Eyes
I grew up in a fundamentalist church and eventually became a minister, but I always struggled with belief. In fact, once I saw the arguments that I present here on my web site, I turned from Christianity to atheism. So I cannot say that I undestand the Christian who is unmoved by these arguments. Therefore, I cannot give advice to fellow atheists on how to think like a believer. But I can offer advice based on a common understanding of human nature. I will attempt to do this toward the end of this discussion.
First I will help the believer sympathize with the atheist because communication is impossible where there is no empathy. I cannot guarantee that it will make it easier to convert atheists (nor would I want to), but I can gaurantee that you will be able to communicate better with one of us. Most of you (assuming you are a believer) will find this to be very difficult, but it will work.
We Must Speak A Common Language
During my time in chat-rooms and message-boards I have seen a lot of miscommunication between believers and atheists. A lot of the problems were due to the fact that the words commonly used by both sides have different meanings to the speakers. Obviously two people cannot have a meaningful discussion about “God” if one person defines the word by a literal interpretation of scripture while the other side describes him as some vague feeling that “some one is up there somewhere.”
Most believers have accepted what they have been told by religious leaders without question, so the first step is to clarify in your own mind what you do believe. Get a piece of paper and write down a specific definition of what you mean when you say the word “God”. Is it a he or a she or does gender have any meaning here? Does your God have limits? What attributes describe your God? Is he limited by good and evil, or do you define “good” to mean whatever his mood is at the moment? While you are at it, you should carefully decide what the words “belief” and “faith” mean to you as well. Many people confuse the two words, but careful consideration reveals that they are not the same.
Part of this discussion on clarifying your beliefs is to recognize that the typical atheist has given this a lot of thought. Where I live in the United States we are surrounded by Christians, and many of them assume that the atheist doesn’t know about Jesus or the Bible. This is not true at all. Most atheists who grew up in America are quite familiar with Christianity and most often are former Christians. In fact, most atheists have fought a long hard battle trying to decide what they believe and have spent many hours studying to find answers. Most likely, the typical atheist you attempt to talk to will know the Bible better than you do, so be prepared.
Agnosticism And Atheism Defined
I will try to share with you the meaning of words as I use them. You will find that many atheists use these words in the same way.
There exists a misconception that agnosticism is a more supportable position between theism and atheism. According to this idea, agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. Many non-believers over the last couple of centuries have called themselves agnostics to avoid the stigma of being called atheist.
And over the last couple of decades there have been a lot of accusations lofted at atheists, that agnosticism is a more “intellectually honest” position. These people say that negative propositions are impossible to prove, the atheist must assume infinite knowledge when they say there is no God.
I see this whole argument as being both pointless and silly. First of all, there are two working definitions of atheism, and their argument could only be directed at one of them.
The first common use of the word “atheism” by atheists means nothing more than absence of belief applied to anyone who does not have belief in a god. This is commonly referred to as “weak atheism.” By this definition, anyone who has never heard of the god concept (such as small children) are also considered atheists along with the people who have heard of a god and been unable to believe in it. This is the definition that someone is using when they make statements such as “We are all born atheists.”
In my earlier discussion of agnosticism, the people who assume that knowledge of a god’s existance is possible are using a second more restricted use of the word “atheism.” This is more commonly known as “strong atheism” and is the definition that I apply to myself. So in this context “atheism” means a belief that there is no God.
Do I believe I know everything?
Now you will be introduced to my usage of the word “belief.” Once you see my definitions of “belief” and “faith”, you will see there is no conflict between agnosticism and atheism and no claim to absolute knowledge. You can be either an agnostic or an atheist or both, each independent of the other. So the answer is no, I do not think I know everything.
I define belief as nothing more than a feeling that something is true. I define faith as believing in something without supporting reason or evidence. I hold several beliefs and I believe in many things; however, God is not one of them. I am only able to believe in things I can see, can prove to exist, or can discover through reason; therefore, I do not have faith. Perhaps it is a genetic defect, or something that happened to me as a child, but I am now unable to have faith.
A Christian hearing that I do not have faith argued with me that I had to have faith in a chair to sit in it. I might have a belief that it will support me because it looks sturdy or I have sat in it before without it falling, but that is not faith. Faith would be believeing in a magical invisible chair that I could not touch, feel or see. When I attempted to sit in that magical chair, then I would exibit faith. I would fall flat on my butt, but I would have faith.
Doesn’t belief in science require faith?
Another common misconception that Christians throw around is that you must have faith in science in order to accept the Theory of Evolution. I believe that Evolution is true because I find the evidence more convincing than any alternative; however, I do not have faith in it because I require supporting evidence. If physical evidence proved it not to be true then I (and millions of scientists) would reject it in favor of something else.
Don’t forget, the commonly accepted Christian definition of faith is:
(Hebrews 11: 1-2) New International Version
In other words, it is being certian of things you cannot prove, belief without any evidence. That is the exact opposite of science.
I became convinced that Evolution was true after I was convinced that the Christian God was not real. Knowing that Jehovah was not there meant that Genesis was not true and that I needed another explanation for how we got here. Science provided the only viable non-religious alternative that I could find. Right now, the Theory of Evolution is the best answer science has. If it is proven wrong, I would not jump back on the religious bandwagon, but would look for the next most logical non-religious solution.
What this tells us about agnosticism vs atheism.
So you can now see that the agnostic position is a statement of “knowledge” while atheism is a statement of “belief.” If we define God as some being beyond human comprehension and ultimately unknowable (which is what most non-fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews contend) then the agnostic is correct, we cannot have absolute knowledge that such a being does or does not exist. By that definition, I (and these believers as well) are all agnostic, since in both cases their concept of God is unknowable. So anyone who appeals to faith (belief without evidence) and anyone who does not believe in a God (because they do not see enough evidence) are both actually agnostics!
Where theists and I differ is in our “belief.” I am agnostic in that I don’t have enough knowledge to determine whether or not such a God exists. But I think that the probability is so slim that I safely assume that one does not exist. In other words I do not believe that a god exists. By my earlier definition that makes me an atheist. The theist thinks that a god story sounds plausible so they have a belief that he exists without any evidence, this means he has “faith.” Once again, faith is belief without any evidence.
So the actual difference between me (as an atheist) and the believer (as a theist) depends or whether or not we require evidence on which to base our beliefs.
Understanding The Atheist
From this whole discussion of belief, faith and agnosticism you can now see why an atheist is unmoved by arguments such as claiming atheism is a religion and saying, ”It takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution as Creation!” While the atheist admittedly has prejudices and beliefs, they do not share faith! To persuade an atheist will require either evidence or proof that his or her beliefs are unjustified.
If you are a believer in a god, what I am going to ask you to do will be one of the hardest things you have ever done, but it will make you a far better communicator with an atheist. Personally, I would love to see theists armed with good convincing arguments. I do not by any stretch of the imagination think that I know everything, and I would accept being proved wrong. But I will not accept a flimsy argument that proves nothing.
See the world as the atheist does
The most important first step may be the hardest. To do it you will need to sit alone where it is quiet and you can concentrate. Then you need to spend a lot of time asking yourself this question:
How would the world look to me if I knew for certain that there was no God?
It is a difficult thing to do but worth the effort.
Take a while and think about the things that people do everyday, every week, annually that would take on a different look without a god. How different would the behavior of religious people look from this perspective? Think about all the effort they put into their religion, how would that appear to you if there were no god? I am not asking you to stop believeing, but just imagine how it would look to you if you did not. Would you still observe Christmas or Easter? How do you think your still-believing friends and family would react to your changed outlook? My experiance is that you will be treated badly, like an outcast. They will direct a lot of anger and insults toward you because of your new knowledge.
Also think about yourself. How would such knowledge change you? How would you behave differently? What would it mean to know there would be no etenity, no afterlife? No punishment or reward after this life, just nothingness. How would that feel? Most Christians assume that atheists have chosent their position because they don’t want accept that they might go to hell, but personally I think that non-existance is far more frightening than eternal punishment. Yet I see no way around it. I did not choose atheism because I liked it, I saw no choice.
Would morality disappear?
Yes and no. Although you will get several differing opinions on this, most athiests view morality as a set of rules dictating acceptable conduct. Most do not see morality as a set of unbendable laws existing outside our reality, but instead a collective set of rules that change over time relative to the society.
From this discussion you might assume that having no god meant that all bets were off and you could do anything you wanted with no consequences. Many believers think so, but unless you want a very lonely life with no companionship or love, and want to live in a jail cell, you will not behave that way. If you want to have a trusting relationship or be successful in business then you still will not lie or cheat. Honesty is still the best policy unless you enjoy the negative reactions of people that you betrayed and lied to.
Furthermore, most human beings are wired so that they need to feel as though they are a good person, in order to have mental health and self-respect. This does not mean that they have to acheive some sort of universal standard of goodness, but rather that they have a self belief that they are good. Otherwise they suffer from self-persecution and guilt.
Most rules of conduct shared my major religions exist because a society without such laws would quickly break down. Any society that did not have such rules would quickly desintigrate with no trace left, so it should be no surprise that all modern societies share these basic rules. So your exact flavor of religious morality may disappear without a god, but all morality would not. You still would not steal, you still would not comit murder because you would have consequences to pay in this life that would not be pleasant. This is why most atheists contend that morality exists without a god, because society says so.
Why are atheists angry?
Once again, some of them are and some are not. It depends on their prior experiance with religion and religious people. Some who claim atheism really are believers who are upset at the god they believe to exist and feel he is unfair. However, most believers would be surprised to find that this is a very, very small number of atheists. Of the several hundred agnostics and atheists that I am aquanted with, no more than five to ten I know would fit into this category. You will do yourself a large injustice to assume that any atheist you meet or discuss religion with is one of these individuals.
I know several atheists however who have been treated poorly or unfairly by religious people who are angry and upset at believers because of this poor treatment. Face it, since religous believers make up such a large majority of the American population, and many of them are careless, thoughtless, unjust people. So we should not be surprised that most non-believers have suffered mistreatment at the hands of the theist. It is a mistake to hold all believers to blame for the mistakes of a careless few, but emotions are not rational, therefore a high percentage of atheists carry resentment towards theists. I have not done a formal poll of ahteists, but from personal experiance I would say that about a third to half of atheists bear a resentment for some type of mistreatment by religious people.
The current political atmosphere has not helped reduce anger among atheists either. Think about it this way… Imagine that you awoke one morning to discover that people who worship space aliens and UFO’s passed laws that we can only wear black and white clothing, because Zyphox ruler of Planet Zenu says bright colors offend him. How would you feel about these people? Would you like them or be angry with them? This is how atheists feel when religious people claim that “God’s law” should take precidence over the American Constitution.
What atheists should know about communicating with believers
Now I will discuss things I believe we atheists must beware of in order to keep open the lines of communication.
Don’t place blame on the believer
Arguments that try to blame various wars and crimes against humanity will prove nothing. I am referring to arguments that blame religious faith for the crusades, the inquisition and other atrocities. Yes, these things were done by religiously motivated people, but we have examples of just as many attrocities that were not created by the religious. In other words bad things will be done by people whether they are religious or not, so we are far better off not to retaliate in a blame-game exchange with believers.
To the believer this will sound like a personal attack blaming them for all the greatest injustices of all time. While it is without question that religious zealots were behind some of these events, there were other factors involved as well. It is entirely unfair to place blame on all religious people because crimials that happended to be religious commited such crimes. Even if you do believe that religion bears some of the blame it will not help communication with a believer to say so.
The blaming game is also a two edged sword. Many believers likewise place blame on atheists for the crimes of communist regimes in the 20th century. The fact that communism claimed atheism as a state religion has no more bearing on these crimes than religion does in your argument. In either case, the belief system of those commiting the crime was not itself to blame for the atrocities. The ones commiting these crimes were motivated by power, greed, prejudice and hatred over and above belief systems.
Do not be condescending
Be very careful not to sound condescending when talking with a believer and do not think of yourself as “enlightened” or smarter than theists. Many atheists are guilty of painting believers as irrational because they place faith above evidence. Seperate your feeling about their beliefs from your feelings about the person. No matter how many times you have heard their argument before, take time to listen before responding. Do not be rude or patronizing.
Do not make unreasonable demands
Don’t make conversion of the believer to atheism your goal. You are not likely to do this any more than they are likey to convert you. The point of these discussions is to gain understanding and respect for each other, not conversion. If you have any other goal in mind, it is best if you just stay away from believers and leave well enough alone.
Don’t be childish
You are not in battle with the believer, and if you think you are, then you shouldn’t be discussing religion with them. Do not look for a winner in any discussion and do not try to “keep score” tracking points on each side. Do not pretend you know the answer to every question. “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer. Each side will respect the other far more if there is mutual honesty.