Why I Secretly Root For the Atheists in Debates…

Robert Hutchinson

by Robert Hutchinson on August 21, 2012 · 59 comments

The same is true with debating the existence of God. Authentic religion of any kind has a mystical component that bypasses logic or, rather, that makes logic almost unnecessary. In a very real sense, we have an experience of the grandeur of God – an experience of what mystics call the Numinous – that is above and beyond the rational arguments of the human mind. These experiences don’t preclude logic; they just make logic irrelevant. My felt sense of the awesomeness and holiness of Being – of the transcendent power that maintains in existence galaxies as well as my own beating heart – makes me want to fall to my knees. To try to conjure up a logical premise from such an experience to use in an argument seems as absurd as trying to do the same thing after a date with my wife.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not belittling logic and reason, or even debates on the existence of God. I just recognize their limitations. It is said that at the end of his life, St. Thomas Aquinas, Christendom’s foremost logician, had a mystical experience and, after that point, he refused to write another word. “All of my writings are as straw,” he supposedly said. The same thing was true of Blaise Pascal, the brilliant French mathematician, scientist and mystic. When he was young, he had a mystical experience of some kind that changed his life. In a frenzy, he scrawled out a description of what had happened to him:

GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob not of the philosophers and of the learned. Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace. GOD of Jesus Christ. My God and your God. Your GOD will be my God. Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD. He is only found by the ways taught in the Gospel. Grandeur of the human soul. Righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you. Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.

Pascal sewed this inscription into his coat and wore it every day of his life.

All this explains why I am not particularly threatened by logical arguments against the existence of God… and why I can even root for the Atheist team a little. If I were to debate myself, I would never use mystical experience as an argument for God’s existence because it is non-falsifiable, it is an unfair trump card that avoids logical reasoning. But just as my love for my wife is not the result of a logical demonstration, so, too, my faith in God is not the result of a chain of deduction. Reason can perhaps confirm what we know already by faith, but faith is rarely the result of reason. What’s more, I have this sense that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the Prime Mover of Aristotelian logic… and that to argue for his existence, using the paltry weapons of the human mind, seems almost presumptuous. So, that is why I came to the Atheist debates with a relatively open mind.

Although the existence of God is as self-evident to me as the existence of air, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that his existence may not be provable logically. The Catholic Church holds as a religious dogma that his existence can be proven, but I am willing to entertain the possibility that, with the development of new tools of logical analysis, the traditional Theistic arguments for his existence may be found wanting. For example, I have long been persuaded that the modern argument from design, at least as presented by the Intelligent Design movement, can be persuasively refuted. The concept of “irreducible complexity,” used by Intelligent Design theorists such as Dembski and Behe, has been effectively refuted by scientists and philosophers. As a result, not all Theist arguments hold water… and I came to the New Atheist debates with an open mind concerning which arguments are solid and which can be undermined. (go to Page 6)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

  • Todd

    Robert,

    Quite simply, we begin in the natural world, not supernatural. Theists say that there is an all powerful, invisible sky dad. This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to disprove extraordinary claims but on the theist to prove them. If I tell you I have a dragon in my garage it is not be up to you to disprove it. The burden of proof of this extraordinary claim is on me to prove it to you. So long as you default to a dusty old book written by ignorant ancestors about an imaginary friend, what is history, cosmology, biology and paleontology, you will see as insults.

  • Coolvan

    Johan, execpt that Craig is basing his argument on the Catholic Christian concept of God, not some random undefined “god”. For Craig “God” is very specific concept with certain attributes which must always be considered. As you should know, among these attributes is the thought that God IS concerned with and involved with His creation and the morality of the creatures to which He has given the gift of Free Will.. If God as defined in Christianity exists then so does objective morality. If you cannot see this, then you do not understand ( or chose to ignore) how Christianity defines God.

    So your arguement here demonstrates what many others above have posted about skeptics, in that you are not consistent in using christian concepts, and fallatious in your reasoning when you do argue against a proper concept.

  • T Merton

    Dr Arif Ahmed (Philo Prof at Cambridge) would easily destroy each argument. Pretending to know things you don’t know is so 14th Century…

  • secular

    This is a very interesting article but I deeply disagree with the idea that atheists don’t present good arguments. The difference that I have noticed is the atheist are more willing to admit ignorance than theist (an example of this is the concession made when discussing the basis of morality-although we have a good scientific idea we don’t yet have all of the answers.) This sometimes makes the argument of the atheist appear incomplete as they can only in good conscience point out inconsistencies in the argument of the theist rather than pretend to have revealed knowledge that they could not possibly have.

  • seculat

    I wrote a comment on here earlier opposing your point of view somewhat. Has it been deleted? If so, why?

  • The Whyman

    It seems that Robert Hutchinson, while making some good observations, is blinded by his own prejudices as evidenced by his gross misrepresentations in regards to creationism (which would leave the informed reader wondering how much serious study he has put into it)

    Knocking down strawmen many be fun and easy, but it’s still fallacious, Robert.
    Try going to http://www.creation.com and see how easily the arguments *actually* are to demolish.

  • seculat

    jesus

  • check before you post…
  • Robert Oram

    Perhaps a little ‘fideistic’ near the end for me, but otherwise a marvellous piece! I laughed out loud a couple of times & also thought, ‘I wish I’d written this!’ And you’re the first person to suggest Craig is as close to a modern day Aquinas as there has been since he existed. Craig’s foundational syllogistic arguments are as well-researched, reasoned & defended as anything there has been since Aquinas’ ‘proofs’.