Looking for a christian viewpoint on this mans views.

Oiwoy

I promise I am in no way trolling, and I'm new here, but guess that the forum doesn't allow to much 'debate' due to the nature of religious discussions turning into flame wars, but as title says, I am looking for a christian reaction to this mans reasoning.

Oiwoy

An interview with a favourite author of mine, caught my eye for his interesting paragraph on the issue of 'belief-that-there-is-no-god'.


AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a "radical Atheist.?Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as "Atheist,?some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic??I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case??This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.


I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid?- then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a nonbeliever, and what brought you to that realization?

DNA: Well, it's a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.

I've put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I'd spent learning History, Physics, Latin, Math, I'd learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn't seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments which, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof -just plain wrong. Why was this?

Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

So, I was already familiar with and (I'm afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn't apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of 'truth? (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: You allude to your Atheism in your speech to your fans (?..that was one of the few times I actually believed in god?. Is your Atheism common knowledge among your fans, friends, and coworkers? Are many people in your circle of friends and coworkers Atheists as well?

DNA: This is a slightly puzzling question to me, and I think there is a cultural difference involved. In England there is no big deal about being an Atheist. There's just a slight twinge of discomfort about people strongly expressing a particular point of view when maybe a detached wishy-washiness might be felt to be more appropriate - hence a preference for Agnosticism over Atheism. And making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in. But there's no big deal about it. A number of the people I know and meet are scientists and in those circles Atheism is the norm. I would guess that most people I know otherwise are Agnostics, and quite a few Atheists. If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I'd probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit "honorable exceptions,?but I don't really think that.)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How often have fans, friends, or coworkers tried to "save?you from Atheism?

DNA: Absolutely never. We just don't have that kind of fundamentalism in England. Well, maybe that's not absolutely true. But (and I'm going to be horribly arrogant here) I guess I just tend not to come across such people, just as I tend not to come across people who watch daytime soaps or read the National Enquirer. And how do you usually respond? I wouldn't bother.

Asiaprod

Oiwoy wrote:

I promise I am in no way trolling, and I'm new here, but guess that the forum doesn't allow to much 'debate' due to the nature of religious discussions turning into flame wars, but as title says, I am looking for a Christian reaction to this mans reasoning.

This forum allows for tremendous amounts of debate, look at the monster debate going on re creationism.
But the key word here is debate, not arguing for the sake of arguing, though I do wonder sometimes;) .
I am at a loss to understand what you want to debate, and why here in the Christianity forum. Do you not think you will get better mileage in the Atheism/Agnostic forum for this question. This guy you have quoted is an Atheist, these are his opinions, he is not a Christian, he does not believe in God.....end of story.
Now if there were a specific point that he made that you would like to talk about, that's fine.
Maybe you could look at it again and find that point you really want to make.


[EDIT] I see you have added the question to the Atheist/Agnostic forum...now I ask myself if indeed you are Trolling?

[EDIT, again] I think I will take that comment re trolling back as I see you are going good oh on the Atheism/Agnostic forum. No offense intended to your original post

Puck

Well I'm a Christian and my response would be that Mr. Adams is quite entitled to his beliefs. They're his beliefs and they're not going to keep me up at night in a rage that someone would dare disagree with me. It is a bit of a bummer that Atheists get a hard time in America though. I don't agree with his beliefs and opinions on this matter but I'll support his right to hold those beliefs without being persecuted for them.

Oiwoy, welcome to the Christianity forum. I would ask you to please read the charter and try not to hold such prejudice as to assume debate is unwelcome here. Debate is most certainly welcome.

Point 7 of this forum's charter:
"Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal."

That said, you'll not get me to engage again in the "creationism" thread.

Excelsior

I agree with him that agnosticism is no safe harbour. I disagree with him on his basis for rejecting faith. But then I am a Christian so you would expect that. The original poster will have to come and actually make a thread out of this and pose some questions or us Christian moderators will have to lock this thread since it isn't really offering a debate.

Oiwoy

Sorry, I ensure you I in no way intend to troll. I have no problem with matters of faith. I am interested in the evolution of relationships and attitudes between people of different and no faith.

Asiaprod

Oiwoy wrote:

Sorry, I ensure you I in no way intend to troll. I have no problem with matters of faith. I am interested in the evolution of relationships and attitudes between people of different and no faith.

As earlier edited, my apologies.
Now you raise a very interesting subject for debate. I have many friends from different faiths and to be honest, the topic of faith comes up very rarely. But I too would be interested to hear the experiences and views of others. Probably the only bad experience I had was with the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. They were just to intense for my liking, and I came away feeling like a 3rd world religious outcast. Must admit I would love to meet some Amish followers

hairyheretic

Generally speaking I don't think faith has a big effect on friendship. I grew up in the North, and have friends both catholic and protestant. Their faith has no bearing (to me at least) on my friendship to them.