Former Atheists on TAW?

[AJB4]

Are there any?

(this stems from my Internet Infidels thread)

For some crazy reason unknown, lately, I've joined the Internet Infidels forum - my first brush with Atheism, completely uncharted territory for me. Naturally, it's rather scary, considering my upbringing.

Atheist - Orthodox conversion stories appreciated.:)

[SeraphimSarov]

Although never actually Orthodox, C. S. Lewis is a good guy to read concerning this.

[Macarius]

I am a former atheist, though I come about Orthodoxy via Protestantism.

The biggest problem with atheism is that it's completely hypocritical - in particular with regards to its epistomology. Agnosticism is far more philosophically viable.

Atheism makes a truth claim - that God does not exist. It claims to know this, at least to know it well enough to assert the truth claim and to base one's life around it. At the same time, atheism - at least in every form I've found it - fails its own epistomological criteria.

Evidentialism is a popular reason for atheism. Evidentialism claims that one cannot claim to "know" something without evidence, preferably (or, at least in operation) publically available evidence.

There are two problems with this for atheists. One: there is no publically available evidence for the asserted truth-claim that one must have publically available evidence to assert a truth-claim as "knowledge." In other words, evidentialism is self-contradictory.

Second, and more damaging for atheism in general, is the simple fact that atheists are - like the rest of us - finite. They can't assert that they have all knowledge, and therefore cannot possibly have all evidence available to assess and, from that assesment, assert that God does not exist. The best they can hope for, from an evidentialist standpoint, is to assert that the evidence they currently have available does not sufficiently "prove" God's existence. This, however, is a far cry from atheism. It is, instead, agnosticism - they can only say "I don't know, based on my current evidence; it is equally possible that there is evidence of God or no evidence against God; I simply don't have enough (all) information available."

The theist does not suffer this problem. All a theist needs is one true experience of the presence of God to have all the personal (non-public) evidence necessary for a lifetime of belief (knowledge). We don't need infinite knowledge to "prove" our belief to ourself. An atheist, if they are consistent in their epistomology, DOES need infinite knowledge and cannot provide it.

Are there any particular problems or philosophical arguments they're throwing at you that you'd like me to address?

Even if you give me a broad category, I can give more details (as in my analysis of general "evidentialist" critiques above).

Most atheistic arguments depend on a prior a-priori assumption that God does not exist and that the onus of proof is on the believer, and that, in the absence of this proof, atheism is the default. Don't buy that for a second, it's a load of bs.

First, I would contend that the a-priori position is theism on account of pascal's wager. If God exists and I refuse to believe in him, that's a severe problem for me both during this lifetime and the next. If God exists and I believe in him, then my life is in good order. If God does not exist and I refuse to believe in him, then my life is in good order. If God does not exist and I believe in him anyway, then I lead a false but well ordered life with no real consequence in the life to come.

The smart default, on a very basic level, is towards theism - though without further argument that is a very shakey default indeed (it's more of a strategic default than a default based on common knowledge or generally accepted assumptions).

The idea that theism has the onus of proof, however, is based entirely on evidentialism - the idea that I must somehow be able to provide someone else with proof in order to claim that I "know" something is ludicrous. I can provide you with no proof that I ate chinese food 3 years and 5 days ago, but I know for a fact that I did, thanks to my memory of that evening. I can provide no proof that I have experienced the presence of God in baptism and eucharist (outside of the dramatic changes in my life), yet I am certainly within reason to assert that I know that I did, and therefore, I know that God exists.

Because of this underlying evidentialist assumption, most atheist critiques run something along the lines of saying one of the following:

"Religion is just a human invention designed to keep moral order in society" (Marxist critique)
"Religion is just a psychological projection of the human condition onto the universe" (Freud)
"Religion is genetically programmed into people" (Memes)
"Religion / Theism is wish fulfillment for a hopeful universe."Note anything in common with these? They're all "explanations" of religion. Whether one will accept them or not is based on one of two pre-existing conditions that have nothing to do with theism or atheism as truth claims:

One will accept an atheistic explanation for religion if one already, a-priori, accepts atheism as the default condition or accepts atheism as truth. The explanation has nothing to do with supporting the truth claim.
One is already inclined to accept such an explanation (that is to say, one is teetering towards atheism already and the explanation 'makes sense' on some gutteral level).In both of these conditions, the truth claim isn't at stake and no argument concerning the truth claim is actually persuading / proving anything. The "explanation" arguments (called "de jure" attacks, sometimes), depend entirely on theists being unable to provide a rational counter explanation. There is, however, a readily available counter explanation for each atheistic de jure attack I've heard.

Religion keeps moral order because the revealed religious truths of God are meant for human benefit and wellbeing - in keeping with the general theistic assertion that God is loving.
We are made in the image of God, and therefore we are HIS projection (though, in man's arrogance, the opposite can sometimes be asserted). Further, as finite animals, we relate to God on our own terms most naturally. This is why apophatic theology is so important - it forces us to avoid worshipping the big-white-bearded-idol-in-the-sky.
God genetically programmed people to seek Him.
The universe IS hopeful because God is loving.See how each of these is acceptable is one has an a-priori belief in theism?

De-jure attacks and defenses get the debate No Where. They are useless, as is evidentialism.

At this point, the atheist usually pulls out their big gun: the problem of evil.

Generally, this is phrased as such: If God is all powerful and all loving, then there wouldn't be suffering. There is suffering, therefore God is either not all powerful, not all loving, or does not exist.

Did you catch the false assumption falacy? I sure did. It's right in that first premise. Who says an all powerful all loving God wouldn't allow suffering? It is, logically speaking, POSSIBLE that God might have a long-term plan which incorporates suffering into some greater good, thus preserving his all-loving attribute. This is, in fact, EXACTLY what Christians assert, and we find God IN our suffering, which, thanks to the cross, becomes communion with Christ-God and therefore is transformed into joy, the foretaste of the New Kingdom, where, thanks God's complete healing of the free-will of those who synergistically cooperate with Him, there will be no suffering.

The problem of evil is NOT a logical contradiction, and no real philosopher (I'm talking PhD publishing in journals and involved in the philosophical community) worth his salt would forward the problem of evil. They haven't for a while, since Dr. Al Plantinga wrote a little book called "God, Freedom, and Evil," which utterly destroyed it.

That doesn't stop evil from providing an experiential and emotional barier to belief in God, but that is an issue of psychology and not philosophy (that is to say, it says more about the psychological-emotive condition of the non-believer than it does about whether or not God exists in the universe).

That takes care of most of the defense needed to assert theism. Next time, I'll write up a few quick arguments in favor of theism (offense) and re-iterate that theism is the default, and that, in light of these arguments, theism's strategic default, the lack of succeful arguments against theism, and my own personal experience, that theism is a lock and that I can claim to "know" that God exists.

Hope that helps,
Macarius.

[kamikat]

I was an atheist before becoming a Christian. The truth is, nothing you can say can change their minds. God must reach down and touch them in a personal way. God must be experienced in order for an atheist to accept that He is real. Faith in God is not logical. In my mind, it is pointless to debate atheists.

[cobweb]

Former atheist here, although my conversion to Orthodoxy has been put on hold for now until I get my family stuff worked out.

[cobweb]

I was an atheist before becoming a Christian. The truth is, nothing you can say can change their minds. God must reach down and touch them in a personal way. God must be experienced in order for an atheist to accept that He is real. Faith in God is not logical. In my mind, it is pointless to debate atheists.

I agree. Faith is not a logical position to hold by definition. To try to argue the existence of God to an atheist via logic is pointless. If it were possible, He wouldn't require Faith.

[WarriorAngel]

Best advice, pray for them.