Viewer Mail - Answering the Atheist

My buddy Andy and I used to convene in high school study hall every day and discuss our late nights with David Letterman. One of our favorites was Thursday night when Dave would answer the viewer mail. Paul Shaeffer would sing..."letters, we gets stacks and stacks of letters....letters". The story is semi-true, I'm not sure how excited we actually were for viewer mail, but since Andy's wife has plagued my comment section with deep, dark atheistic questions I thought it was an appropriate intro.



So, here we go with our first instalment of viewer mail...

'Life happens: we decimate the rain forests and kill the native species; the earth's crust destroys our coastland and kills lives. It's the flux and flow of life. There is no cause or reason. It's the looking for a reason that fosters the anger and resentment.' Where do you categorize this type of atheist? And how do you answer him?

I've been reading some of the philosophy genre lately...in thinking about my answer, I can already see that effecting/affecting me. Anyway, without any further stalling on such a question...

Categorizing & Answering:

In my mind, the issue of "cause" seems to be the weak area of this atheist's argument.

"There is no cause or reason." To me it seems that a causeless, reasonless world has no anger and resentment in it because nothing has existed to cause the anger/resentment. I'll attempt to explain my thinking behind that statement. By the very act of saying "it's the looking for...that brings anger", the person has entered into an causal argument stating that the cause of B is A. In this case, the cause of anger and resentment is in the looking-for-a-reason. Therefore, if my second rate logic works, how could there be any anger/resentment in the world when we've removed some sort of evil causing it? Whether this "evil" is a tsunami, an earthquake, or looking for a reason for suffering...there has to be a cause.

Let's assume for a moment that the cause exists, but it is unknowable ("There is cause and reason, it is unknowable. Anger is a result of searching for the cause."). In this case, perhaps we would feel emotions of anger when we experience the frustration of tracking down something unknowable. Still, I would want to ask similar annoying questions. For example, our new and improved statement seems to have tracked down a knowable cause of anger and frustration...and, again, this anger stems from trying to pinpoint any causes. But, if our statement were true , we would not have been able to discover the unknowable cause of our frustration toward discovering causes. In other words, we still have a causal statement, it has just been expanded with a "it is unknowable" footnote.

If my two short paragraph's semi-coherent statements are convincing...and, if the atheist admits that some sort of "cause" exists in the world, then the discussion moves to a different level. What is the cause? The where does evil come from question should be as difficult for an atheist as why does suffering exist is for a theist.

That is the long answer to your question. The short answer is that I would just try to confuse him or her with alot of philosophical mumbo-jumbo until they were confused and walked away.

Anyway, I'm not sure any of that actually works logically. Another option would be giving them a 4 Spiritual Laws Tract. How would you answer the question?

Anger At God

We want to decipher God. We want to figure Him out. We want to turn him into a video game, a book, or a Rubik's Cube. We want something that we can finish, unlock, and put on the shelf.

Once we understand something we can make sure it follows the rules. If it does abide by the rules we experience comfort. If it breaks the rules we experience anger. Think about sports. There’s anger that enrages thousands when the referee misses the call.

The question emerges: Does/can God miss the call? We certainly act like he has the ability to. Our rage and bitterness is frequently focused on God rather than the sin that should be the focus of our anger.

More questions: Why? Why are we so easily angered at God? Perhaps it stems from partial belief? Let’s examine two extremes of the spectrum…

A) A true atheist. If a true atheist exists, they are incapable of feeling any true emotions toward God. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, therefore, when my car breaks down or my wife gets sick or when a friend dies…I am incapable of being angry at Santa Claus. Any anger at God assumes the existence of that God.

B) Who else is never angry at God? We need to stretch ourselves here…we need someone who is the total opposite of an atheist…someone 100% confident in the existence of God. Hopefully, without cheating, I can use Jesus as an example. Equality with God seems in some way to be the opposite of atheism.

So, does someone 100% confident in the existence of God get angry at God? Was Jesus ever angry at God? Did He have reason to be?
When Lazarus died…
When His Father was sending Him to a cross…
When He wept…
…was He angry at God? Did He have reason to be?

What does this tell us? I think it tells us that any anger at God must exist because we live our lives somewhere in the middle of this unbelief scale. There seems to be some sort of tension here, and I think it comes out in many of the Psalms. On the one hand, there's alot pointing to a brutal honesty of our emotions toward God. But, on the other hand, a contentment with our lack of understanding of God does not seem to be encouraged (James' "count it all joy" passage comes to mind).

I've been thinking about Psalms 116 a little bit lately. Here are two verses from this optimistic Psalm (make sure you check out the context sometime):

I believed, even when I spoke,

'I am greatly afflicted';

I said in my alarm,

'All mankind are liars.'

The two quotations seem as though they are statements the author is not proud of, in one sense. But, he still admits that he believed when he spoke. Even honest discontent still reflects a belief in God. Perhaps we can call this "anger" at God. If so, the emotion doesn't seem to be the problem, I think the problem is the follow up to the emotion. Do we feed the emotion with Truth or do we follow it up with an extra dose of self-pity? I think it's a hard question to answer, because the question seems to imply some limits to our negative emotional expression toward God. ...all sorts of slippery-slope troubles seem to tie me up in these thoughts.

For the sake a semi-short post, I have two thoughts. Anger at our situations, frustration at God, whatever we call it, needs to be expressed. It's honest...if God already knows how we're feeling, why should we try to mentally hide anything from Him. But, these emotions need some reminders of who God is...and I think they specifically need reminders of the cross. If anger at God is only possible along side of a level of unbelief…then, that unbelief begins at our understanding of the cross.

Romans 8:32 - He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

God had to be up to something when He sent His Son to the cross. Sometimes we act/think as though God was up to nothing when He sent Jesus to die.

A second passage that seems relevant is Paul's quotation of the Psalm mentioned earlier.

II Corinthians 4:13-14

Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, 'I believed, and so I spoke,' we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Although I haven't done alot of study on this passage, there seems to, at the least, be an emphasis on an overarching awareness of God's love through the cross in our speech. I think it's safe to infer from Psalm 116 that any expression of frustration or anger toward God be reigned in with thoughts of God's love through Christ's death.

So, in regards to anger at God. I think it stems from a lack of understanding of God. And, since a full understanding of God and His ways is impossible...maybe the best thing we can do in times of intense hardship is meditate of the love expressed through the cross, have faith in a God bigger than us, and, if possible, relax. There is much good in seeking to know God more. But, red flags should appear any time we think we have God figured out. He’s not a puzzle. He’s not a riddle. And, I think it is safe to say that He never misses the call.

Abortion in the Movies - If it's good enough for Al Mohler's blog...

...I borrowed this link from Al Mohler's blog. It's a great article about abortion and the movies. Here is the link:

You Won't See Termination 2 at the Movies

It's about how Hollywood can't seem to bring itself to promote abortion. And, I think the article is on to something. I think movies are a good example of that circular pattern of the culture feeding on the media and the media feeding off the culture. As already mentioned on this blog, movies give us an insight into what the culture is up to. I think this example offers us insight into the fact that few people in this generation view abortion as any sort of a happy ending. And, as the article states, if it's not a child...if it's a mass of cells, why shouldn't an abortion provide a potential happy ending.

As a school project, I entered overacheivish mode and did a 50-page project (huge fonts, lots of double space, etc.) categorizing bioethics in the movies. With several exceptions abortion is almost always viewed negatively (If These Walls Could Talk was one of few exceptions). You can see similar negative trends with cloning, which is intricately tied to the problem of abortion in my mind. The natural aversion to modifying and killing humanity is worth paying attention to. Will this aversion lessen in another 40 years because it's something left over from our parents generation? Or, will we still squirm when it comes to cloning and abortion because it's part of our make up, our conscience, what is written on our hearts?