Thoughtful Musings of an Atheist and my response.

(Originally written April 23, 2007)

In response to "Thoughtful Musings of an Atheist"
by Phillip Fiscella
Taylor Echo 4/20/2007

"Atheists are much more prevalent among those who have attainted higher education"
-What does this prove

Equivalence of religion and superstition - "Education and rational thought will usually erode superstition". Thus, all thinkers who are religious have been irrational.

Atheists are no worse ethically then theists. Doesn't this deny theism of guilt as well as atheism. What is the point here?

"Ethics seems to be more about maturity than religion". Obviously then Hitler, Stalin, etc. were immature.

"Frankly we're not seeking converts; we just want to be left alone."

Theism and Atheism cannot peacefully exist side-by-side. The tension between them will be an ever-waged war in the intellectual realm so long as both sides exist. Atheism may not have an evangelical approach for the generations of theists that exist here and now, but they are systematically eroding all theistic influence in education. It is about converting subsequent generations.

"I am uncomfortable with some of the teachings of the Bible, as any civilized person ought to be". "The horrible injustices" make sense only if you assume a universal objective standard of Justice.

If you do this then theism has already been exonerated from claims by atheisms by its internal inconsistency.

Fiscella article made me smile. A challenging piece in the Echo is not a usual find. That's not to say that the artless are  not well-written or a slight on any letters to the editor, but its like reading a liberal article in Rush Limbaugh's newsletter. A theistic defense would take more space then any letter to the editor would allow, so I am going to simply point out three major problems with Fiscella article. First, the atheist employs as much (if not more) faith as the theist. Second, atheism and theism cannot peacefully co-exist. Thirdly, extracting tidbits of information from any source and taking them in isolation never solves or helps anything.

The major difference between atheism and theism (other than the obvious) is that theists acknowledge their faith while atheists use it while refusing to recognize it. Fiscella points out that the use of rational thought will erode superstition. If this is so, a number of things need to be pointed out.

First, how is it that only 7-9% of the people ins America are so rational to be non-superstitious. If 91-93% of the Americans had 7-9% had no sight we would claim that there was something wrong with the 7-9%, not the 91-93%. But, Fiscella is reversing the common sense argument. Also what about the vast majority of religious thinkers in the past? Are they all irrational now?

I am not normally a fan of common sense arguments because they are not strong so here is a much better point. Faith is not a facet of humanity that is opposed to rationality. Faith is not irrational; it is super rational. Faith exceeds, not opposes rationality. Atheists begin with grounds for not believing God.

Theists have grounds for belief in God. The jump from the grounds for belief to actual belief is faith. Atheists have the ground of disbelief because of the lack of empirically sensible evidence of God and the problem of evil. Theists have grounds for belief in God on numerous bases: mystical experience, rational argumentation, and the fact that if there is no God, how can there be anything?

The point here is this, atheists must have faith in their disbelief in God. They have rational grounds for this, but their faithless-ness is supranatural. Theists on the other hand, have grounds for their belief in God, which are rational and their faith is suprarational. The rational grounds for both are not equal and if we were to systematically break it down the grounds for belief in God are much more rational then grounds for disbelief.

My second point focuses on the statement, "Frankly, we're not seeking converts; we just want to be left alone". First, there are atheists that are evangelical. There are Christians that are not evangelical. Second, Atheism and Theism can have no peaceful coexistence.

Thankfully there is no war of guns between atheists and theists. But the battlefields between these mortal enemies exits nonetheless. The intellectual war between these two positions will be waged so long as there are theists and atheists. Neither side can live and let live. Theists, especially Christians are (or at least ought to be) working as missionaries. The missionary work of atheism is the systematic opposition of theism in education circles. Atheists seek to convert subsequent generations by subtraction. If Fiscella wanted to be "left alone" he would not have written a provocative letter to a Christian paper. The fact that he penned those words in this paper disproved his claim.

Lastly, Fiscella like many theists and atheists alike, isolates passages of the Old Testament to suit his purpose. This is deplorable showmanship. It is a straw man argument. It's misleading and purposefully deceiving. Christians adopt this mentality to condemn alcohol use, tattoos, swear words and a whole host of sins. Non-Christians use it to show the inconsistency of God. Both are deplorable, unacceptable and ought to be corrected immediately.

In closing, I would state that it is sad that some questions have caused someone to lose their faith. It is the true sign of human hubris that we expect to have solutions to all problems. It is also sad that massive self-deception/self-denial occurs is atheistic condemnation of faith. they condemn themselves alongside with those they see as "superstitious" and "uneducated". It is even more sad that this article by Fiscella is commonplace and regarded as intelligent and plausible at Christian and non-Christian circles.