In Paul's letter to the church in Rome, he tells us that those who reject God in exchange for their own ungodliness "suppress the truth." He goes on to say that "for what can be know about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived every since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 18b; 19-20).In Frank Turek's latest article, Sleeping with your Girlfriend, he explores some of the reasons why atheists willingly choose to reject God.
Turek writes:
"I’ve found that the machine-gun-objection approach is common among many skeptics and liberals. They throw objection after objection at believers and conservatives but never pause long enough to listen to the answers. It doesn’t matter that you’ve just answered their question with an undeniable fact—they’ve already left that topic and are rattling off another objection on another topic as if you hadn’t said a word. They don’t really seem interested in finding answers but in finding reasons to make themselves feel better about what they want to believe.
After all, a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs...unbelief is more motivated by the heart than the head." [1]
Check out the entire article here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad A. Gross
Reference:
1) Dr. Frank Turek, Sleeping with your Girlfriend, http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=98, March 2, 2009, Emphasis mine.
Comments
This was a great post! It caused alot of back and forth responses between Frank and several other readers. I was especially interested in conversations between Frank and Andrew Ryan. What are your thoughts on Andrew's argument comparing Islam's refusal to eat bacon to the same concept as not accepting Christianty so one can have sex with your girlfriend? I really don't see the legitmacy of Andrew's argument but not sure I understand what would be my best response if I were posed with the same question.
Thanks!
How are you doing? I also thought the article made some great points!
I went back and read Mr. Ryan's objection and I believe it breaks down. If you go back and look at Turek's article, he is talking about atheists who have willfully rejected God or have said that they simply "don't want the universe to work that way" or that believing in God would interfere with the sexual desires. They willfully don't want to believe or willfully desire Christianity to be false.
The "Bacon Argument" is different. No one, to my knowledge, eats bacon and then thinks, “Oh no, I’m acting out against Islam.” No one is saying, "I want to eat bacon, but Islam interferes with my desire for bacon, therefore, Islam is false!"
The point Turek is making is that many times the rejection of God has more to do with the heart and less to do with the head.
I can’t believe I just examined a “Bacon Argument!” :-)
Godspeed
To paraphrase:
Turek was saying that SOME people reject God because they don't want to be morally accountable. A particular statement.
Andrew reframed it and misrepresented Turek, implying that Turek was saying ALL rejections of God are because people don't want to be morally accountable. A universal statement.
Then he tries to draws a poor parallel with a trivial Islamic law and tries to pull a reductio. It sounds somewhat convincing on one hand, but on the other hand something is fuzzy and wrong. This is because Andrew switched Turek's particular statement with a universal, blanket statement. BIG difference.
What's more, no one is saying that ALL atheists do this. Perhaps, as Turek pointed out, it was hitting a little too close to home.
"Some people reject God for moral reasons."
"You're saying ALL people reject God for moral reasons?!?! -- ROAR!!!"
The Bacon argument.
You said it, Chad: "many times the rejection of God has more to do with the heart and less to do with the head."
Contrary to Paul's suggestion, the mere existence of the world and all things in it is *not* proof of a god, let alone of the specific god he chose to believe in.
Thank you for stopping by Truthbomb and taking your time to comment.
As I wrote above, "MANY TIMES the rejection of God has more to do with the heart and less to do with the head." This is not an absolute statement. Only you know why you don't believe in God; I have no way of knowing your reason(s).
Curious- What would you consider a good reason (or reasons) to believe in God?
Respectfully
Ryan, since you do not believe there are any reasons to believe in God, can you share with us how you came to that conclusion. Thank you and welcome to the blog.
For His Glory,
Jake
"I really don't see the legitmacy of Andrew's argument but not sure I understand what would be my best response if I were posed with the same question."
That's quite funny. Basically: "I know it's wrong, but I can't think of a reason why not".
That's called cognitive dissonance.
"No one is saying, "I want to eat bacon, but Islam interferes with my desire for bacon, therefore, Islam is false!""
Right, and no-one says "I want to have sex, but Christianity interferes with my desire for sex, therefore Christianity is false".
Perfect illustration of why my original comparison was a good one.